Envt Design Research & The Design of Urban Spaces

University of Massachusetts Amherst
ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst
Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014
2012
Environmental Design Research and the Design of

Urban Open Space: A Study of Current Practice in
Landscape Architecture
Jennifer Masters
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses

Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Environmental Design Commons, and the
Landscape Architecture Commons
Masters, Jennifer, "Environmental Design Research and the Design of Urban Open Space: A Study of Current Practice in Landscape
Architecture" (2012). Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014. 928.
Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses/928
This thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses 1911 -
February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact
scholarworks@library.umass.edu.
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RESEARCH
AND THE DESIGN OF URBAN OPEN SPACE:
A STUDY OF CURRENT PRACTICE IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
A Thesis Presented
by
JENNIFER MASTERS
Submitted to the Graduate School of the

University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
September 2012
Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning

© Copyright Jennifer Masters 2012
All Rights Reserved

A Thesis Presented
by
JENNIFER MASTERS
Approved as to style and content by:
_______________________________________
Patricia McGirr, Chair
_______________________________________
Mark Hamin, Member
_______________________________________
Elisabeth Hamin, Member
____________________________________
Elizabeth Brabec, Department Head
Landscape Architecture and Regional
Planning
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Sincere thanks are due to the members of the committee for their support and
valued insight throughout this project. Mark Hamin’s research acumen and enthusiastic
response to the proposal strengthened this inquiry. Elisabeth Hamin’s expertise in
qualitative research methods was essential to conducting a sound analysis. Committee
Chair Patricia McGirr introduced the concept of post-occupancy evaluation in my first
year in graduate school, fueling my interest in understanding why some spaces seem to
work better for people than others. Thanks are also due to Robert Ryan, whose class,
People and the Environment, solidified my commitment to studying this phenomenon.
Additional faculty members made contributions that are much appreciated. Mark
Lindhult and Max Page offered astute feedback at key junctures in the process. Jane
Thurber likened the process of translating research for use in practice to a design
problem, an analogy that has made a lasting impression. And Sue Weidemann of the
State University of New York at Buffalo provided encouragement and access to
important resources during the final stages of the project. Thank you to all.
Most importantly, a debt of gratitude is owed to the professional designers who
agreed to participate in this study. They gave generously of their time and offered
articulate and thoughtful commentary on what has proven to be a complex and nuanced
topic. Any positive impact this study may have is due to these twelve landscape
architects.
iv
ABSTRACT

SEPTEMBER 2012
JENNIFER MASTERS, B.A., UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
M.S.ED., UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
M.L.A., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST
Chair: Professor Patricia McGirr
A large and growing body of research exists on how the design of the
environment can positively or negatively affect people’s health and well-being, as well as
influence their behavior. Researchers in this field, known as “environmental design
research,” have long acknowledged the challenge of translating their findings into
formats that are accepted and used by practitioners. A great deal of this research is
focused on open space (parks, plazas, streets) in urban areas. This study explores how
this research and the practice-oriented translations of it are used by landscape architects
who have been recognized in the profession for their designs of urban open space.
Through interviews with practitioners, an understanding emerges of the impact of
environmental design research on contemporary practice, leading to recommendations
that could enhance it in the future.
Key findings of the study indicate that translations of the research, specifically in
the form of design guidelines, while intended to inform practice, are not widely used by
designers. Rather, to understand how design impacts human behavior, practitioners rely
v
primarily on what they refer to as intuition, largely informed by their own direct
observations of people in public space. The quality of their personal observations,
therefore, is critical to their depth of understanding of human behavior and the
environment. Many of the study participants regard the findings of environmental design
research as a reinforcement of their intuition.
The study concludes with recommendations that could improve the skills of
design students and practitioners to conduct, interpret, and apply their own direct
observations in their designs, using methods and findings from the field of environmental
design research to inform and enrich this process.
Keywords: urban open space, environmental design research, environment-behavior
research, human behavior, human health and well-being, design guidelines, landscape
architecture practice, design education and pedagogy, research methods, direct
observation, post-occupancy evaluation
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
Complexities in contemporary urban open space design.........................................1

Purpose for research and contribution to the field ...................................................2
Project goals.............................................................................................................5
Research questions and hypotheses .........................................................................6
Scope of research and organization of study ...........................................................7
2. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL

PRACTICE: HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND CURRENT TRENDS...................9
Definitions................................................................................................................9
Environmental design research ....................................................................9

Environment behavior studies and other names ........................................10
Behavior-based design guidelines..............................................................10
Aesthetic design guidelines........................................................................11
Brief history of environmental design research .....................................................12

William H. Whyte: Pioneer....................................................................................13
Translation .............................................................................................................16
Design guidelines...................................................................................................18
People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space ...................................21
Additional methods to communicate research to practitioners..............................24
Project for Public Spaces ...........................................................................25

Research Design Connections....................................................................26
Professional associations ...........................................................................26
Professional journals..................................................................................27
Trade publications......................................................................................27
Books .........................................................................................................28
vii
Post-occupancy evaluation.....................................................................................32
University design curricula ....................................................................................37
Landscape Architectural Graphic Standards ........................................................40
Sustainable Site Initiative™ ..................................................................................41
Summary ................................................................................................................42
3. STUDY METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................44
Selection of participants.........................................................................................44
Interview process ...................................................................................................45
Analysis process.....................................................................................................46
4. FINDINGS.............................................................................................................49
Introduction............................................................................................................49
Shift in research question...........................................................................49

Context.......................................................................................................50
Themes...................................................................................................................51
Expressions of uncertainty and value ........................................................51

Personal connection ...................................................................................53
Observation as research: a spectrum..........................................................54
Intuition......................................................................................................55
Design process and design guidelines........................................................57
Research in practice ...................................................................................60
William Whyte and Jan Gehl: observers ...................................................61
Practical resources .....................................................................................62
Current interest in the social aspects of design..........................................63
Post-occupancy evaluation.........................................................................64
Discussion of themes .............................................................................................65
Interconnections.........................................................................................65
Direct observation: a link between research and practice..........................67
Discovery and intuition..............................................................................69
Empathy .....................................................................................................72
Summary ....................................................................................................74
5. RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................76
Design education....................................................................................................76
Reframe research: methods first, findings next .........................................76
viii
LAAB accreditation standards...................................................................82
New resource .............................................................................................84
Professional practice ..............................................................................................86
ASLA awards criteria ................................................................................86

Professional development ..........................................................................86
Landscape Architect Registration Examination.........................................86
Promote new paradigm ..............................................................................87
Further Research ....................................................................................................88
Survey with larger sample size ..................................................................88

Detailed curriculum review........................................................................88
Post-occupancy evaluations .......................................................................90
6. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................91
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................93
A. THE SOCIAL LIFE OF SMALL URBAN SPACES (WHYTE 1980)

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CHAPTERS ......................................................94
B. PEOPLE PLACES: DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR URBAN OPEN SPACE
(MARCUS AND FRANCIS 1998) SUMMARY OF DESIGN GUIDELINES
FOR URBAN PLAZAS.........................................................................................97
C. WHAT MAKES A SUCCESSFUL PLACE? PROJECT FOR PUBLIC
SPACES...............................................................................................................102
D. 12 CLASSIC AUTHORS AND TEXTS FOR ARCHITECTURE DESIGN
STUDENTS (ANTHONY 2004).........................................................................105
E. COVER LETTER ................................................................................................106
F. PROJECT SUMMARY AND CONSENT FORM .............................................107
G. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................................................................................109
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................110
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Informed journalistic critique, an exercise for students..................................... 34
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Whyte 1980, 20-21), sample page
spread ............................................................................................................ 14
2. People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space (Marcus and
Francis 1998, 42-43), sample page spread.................................................... 24
3. Cities for People (Gehl 2010, 144-145), sample page spread ........................... 29
4. Protection, comfort, and delight: 12 quality criteria for the city at eye
level (Gehl 2010, 239) .................................................................................. 30
5. Intuition and research findings in practice: two perspectives............................ 57
6. Web of influences relative to the social aspects of design.................................. 66
7. Direct observation as common research method ............................................... 68
8. Direct observation as link between research and practice ................................. 69
9. Visual research: observing through Whyte’s eyes............................................. 71
10. Visual research: observing through Gehl's eyes ................................................ 71
11. Experience and growth in the design process .................................................... 73
12. Collaboration supporting the application of principles for successful

social space ................................................................................................... 75
13. Environmental design research methods enhance the design process ............... 81
xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Complexities in contemporary urban open space design
Good design of open space in cities worldwide is critical. Estimates place the
percentage of people living in urban areas at nearly 50% today, with a projected increase
to 70% by 2050 (Population Reference Bureau 2012). To provide for this growing
number of urban residents, design professionals must strive to meet the sometimes
competing demands related to the three pillars of sustainability: environment, economy,
and social equity (United Nations General Assembly 2005). In this effort, supporting the
health and well-being of urban residents, an element of social equity, is a critical
component of sustainable urban design.
Landscape architects face a complex challenge in the design of urban open space.
In every project, they must balance a broad range of factors in their designs, including
ecological, cultural, economic, aesthetic, and human behavioral considerations. The
variety of constraints inherent in each project demand flexibility, as well as in-depth
knowledge, on the part of designers, who increasingly collaborate with ecologists,
architects, urban planners, and sociologists to develop and implement sustainable
projects. Urban open space design presents some of the most difficult challenges, due to
highly degraded sites, culturally diverse constituents, and tight budgets, among other
factors.
Systems for managing and measuring these factors have been developed by
several organizations, including the Landscape Performance Series by the Landscape
1
Architecture Foundation (LAF) and the Sustainable Sites Initiative™ (SITES,) a
collaboration between the American Society of Landscape Architects, the Lady Bird
Johnson Wildflower Center at the University of Texas at Austin, and the United States
Botanic Garden. The Landscape Performance Series is an online resource that compiles
information and innovations in sustainable landscape design as evidenced in specific
projects. As indicated on the LAF website, the factors reviewed in the many case studies
provided include site, soils, water, habitat, carbon, energy, air quality, materials and
waste, economic factors, and social considerations. The Sustainable Sites Initiative™
Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks (2009) provide explicit metrics in the same
basic categories. Of note is that in both evaluation systems, enhancing human health and
well-being is recognized as a requirement for sustainable design. To be considered
sustainable, a project must provide direct human benefits for the people who use it. The
study of these benefits and their relation to the design of the built environment is the
subject of environmental design research, and some of the most widely-known research
has been conducted in urban environments.
Purpose for research and contribution to the field
The purpose of this study is to better understand how environmental design
research (EDR) is used in current landscape architecture practice, specifically in the
design of urban open space, and to make recommendations for how it could be more
effectively integrated. One of the longstanding debates by researchers in the field of
EDR is how best to present, or translate, their findings to practitioners – landscape
architects, architects, and urban designers – so that they can be readily applied in
2
practice. This challenge will be discussed at length in the next chapter; it is mentioned
here because of its role in this inquiry.
The original intent of the study was to explore how practicing designers use
design guidelines based on human behavior (one method of translating the findings of
EDR into practice) as an indication of their knowledge and use of the field of
environmental design research as a whole. It was determined early in the study, however,
that behavior-based design guidelines are not regularly used by designers. The study,
therefore, has evolved to consider practitioners’ perceptions and use of environmental
design research in more broad terms. In other words, the focus has shifted away from the
designers’ use of translations of the findings of EDR, and toward their application of the
principles for good social spaces that are based on those findings. The best outcome of
the study, therefore, would be to foster more insightful, nuanced, and sensitive
applications of those principles in the design of urban open space, resulting in more city
streets, plazas, and parks that meet the social needs of the people who use them.
The study is predicated on the author’s belief that human behavioral
considerations are a critical component of the success of a designed space. This people-
centered approach to design is pragmatically summarized by Clare Cooper Marcus in a
Landscape Architecture Magazine article that considered just one of the issues addressed
in environmental design research – the design and location of seating in outdoor spaces.
In her conclusion Marcus states “this isn’t rocket science. It is empathy for the eventual
user – and just plain common sense” (Marcus 2001, 127). The genesis for this study is
the author’s assessment that ten years later, the design of contemporary urban open space
does not always reflect the empathy invoked by Marcus.
3
Interviews were conducted with leading designers of urban space (see Chapter 3
for a discussion of the methodology used for selecting participants) to explore current
perceptions of the field of environmental design research. The study does not include
post-occupancy evaluations (POE) of urban spaces designed by study participants, and
the goal of the study is not to assess specific projects. There is, however, a strong and
multi-faceted link between environmental design research and the systematic evaluation
of the built environment, and it will be explored in other ways throughout this paper.
A variety of potential contributions to the field are anticipated. The increasing
urbanization of our world demands that the design of cities include suitable open space to
make urban environments more liveable, vibrant, and healthy. In the broadest sense, the
expectation is that this study will contribute to that discussion.
As mentioned, while not specific to urban environments, the 2009 Guidelines and
Performance Benchmarks of the Sustainable Sites Initiative™ (SITES), include a
project’s support of human health and well-being. However, in a press release issued in
January 2012 by the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) to announce the
first SITES-certified landscapes, human health and well-being was not included in the
description of the SITES program. This omission could be interpreted as a reflection of a
lower priority assigned to social issues, relative to other considerations (hydrology, soils,
vegetation, materials, site selection), by the profession. Still, the inclusion of human
health and well-being in the SITES benchmarks represents an important milestone. As
the SITES program grows, this study could contribute to helping designers better
understand this benchmark and offer practical suggestions for incorporating human health
and well-being in their designs.
4
A more comprehensive understanding of the designers’ perceptions of
environmental design research on urban public space could also contribute to ongoing
strategies and efforts to make this research more accessible and compelling for designers.
As mentioned, however, the study findings regarding current translations of EDR indicate
the need for a significant shift in thinking about the application of research in practice if it
is to have the greatest impact on design. Translating the research may not be the most
effective approach to share it with practitioners.
Finally, the study has implications for undergraduate and graduate landscape
architecture degree programs, relative to the inclusion of environmental design research
in the curriculum. This question has been previously raised; a review of the requirements
for the study of environmental design research in accredited architecture and landscape
architecture programs is included in Chapter 2. This study supports the recommendations
of other studies that accreditation standards should be revised to include environmental
design research. The larger question of how this can be done most effectively for
students, in light of key findings of the study, is explored.
Project goals
The goals for the project are to:
 Gain a better understanding of the ways in which and extent to which environmental
design research is used in current landscape architecture practice;
 Gain a better understanding of current perceptions of behavior-based design
guidelines, including perceptions of the benefits and limitations of their use; and
5
 Based on this understanding, provide recommendations that would result in greater
knowledge and application of the findings, or principles of good social design,
established by environmental design research.
These goals reflect the change in focus of the study from understanding how
translations of EDR are used in practice, to understanding how designers have learned
and internalized the guiding principles for good social space that the field of
environmental design research has generated.
Research questions and hypotheses
The research questions are linked to project goals:
 In what ways and to what extent does environmental design research influence the
design of urban open space?
 Are there perceptions about environmental design research or behavior-based design
guidelines that positively or negatively impact their integration in current practice?
 In what ways and to what extent can designers and students enhance their level of
understanding of the guiding principles for successful social space based on
environmental design research?
The original hypothesis of the study was that there would be a wide variation
among practicing designers regarding their use of design guidelines. As mentioned,
however, early results indicated that behavior-based design guidelines are not used in
practice by any of the participants; there was in fact no variation at all. A second
hypothesis was that contemporary designers might perceive design guidelines (many of
which were published decades ago by early researchers in the field) as outdated and
therefore irrelevant in current practice. Study findings indicate that this is not the reason
6
design guidelines are not used in practice; alternate reasons offered by participants are
discussed in Chapter 4. Based on the findings, recommendations are made for how to
enhance practitioners’ and students’ understanding of the field of environmental design
research, now and in the future.
Scope of research and organization of study
The scope of the study is limited to an analysis of interviews with twelve
practicing designers. The interviews were in-depth, allowing the discussion to evolve
based on early results, and resulting in a rich exploration of the topic. This evolution
could not have occurred with a different methodology, such as a survey or questionnaire.
The findings and conclusions presented here should be considered a starting point for
further investigation of specific issues through continued conversation with study
participants, as well as through different methods to reach more designers. Despite the
limited sample size, the findings do yield recommendations that can be implemented
immediately, even as further study is pursued.
The organization of the study is as follows: the literature review presented in
Chapter 2 covers a brief history of environmental design research, focusing on efforts by
those in the field to translate their findings for use by design practitioners. One of the
most comprehensive collections of behavior-based design guidelines for urban open
space is discussed. The chapter concludes with a survey of current resources for EDR.
The methodology of the study is described in Chapter 3, including the selection of
participants, the interview process, and an overview of the methods used in the analysis.
In Chapter 4, the study findings are reported as themes that emerged from the analysis of
the interviews. The themes represent a catalogue of the underlying messages of the data,
7
as interpreted by the author. Direct quotes from participants illuminating these themes
are integrated throughout the chapter, which concludes with a synthesis and discussion of
the themes. Recommendations based on the findings are presented in Chapter 5. The
recommendations are divided into those that apply to design education and those that
apply to professional practice, although there is significant – and intentional – overlap
between the two. Suggestions for further research are included in this chapter. Finally,
overall conclusions of the study are presented in Chapter 6.
8
CHAPTER 2
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE:
HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND CURRENT TRENDS
Definitions
Environmental design research
A universally agreed-upon definition of environmental design research (EDR) is
difficult, if not impossible, to find. According to the Environmental Design Research
Association (EDRA) website, the field is concerned with the “social aspects of the
environment” and involves “improving understanding of the interrelationships between
people, their built and natural surroundings, and helping to create environments
responsive to human needs” (Environmental Design Research Association 2012). Other
more concise definitions include the “study of how spaces and places affect people, and
vice versa” (Anthony 2004, 84) and “the interrelationship between environments, society,
culture, and human behavior” (Demsky and Mack 2008, 271). Richard Wener, a
recognized expert and professor of environmental psychology at New York University,
describes EDR as the “interface between the design fields and the social and behavioral
sciences that addresses human aspects of, needs in, and responses to the built and natural
environment,” and he continues “there is some disagreement about areas of emphasis and
even descriptive names for this field, and it may be useful to consider what makes the
body of work in EDR different, special, and/or unique” (Wener 2008, 283). He states
that there are many fields that argue for “good design” and for designers to be
“responsive to human needs,” but that EDR is different because it “involves the use of
9
social and behavioral science findings to consider who the clients and users are, and to
systematically discover their needs, habits, behaviors, concerns, and uses of space. It
uses these data and theories to support, inform, and transform design decisions” (Wener
2008, 283). The methods of this social research and the extent of the application of its
findings in professional practice are explored in this study.
Environment behavior studies and other names
There are additional names for the field, which could contribute to some level of
uncertainty among practitioners about what it comprises, as will be presented in the
analysis of the data in Chapter 4. Among other names, “environment behavior studies”
(EBS) is considered more widely used in current discourse in the field (Demsky and
Mack 2008, 273). A similar name “environment-behavior research” has also been argued
to be more descriptive of the primary focus of the field (Demsky and Mack 2008, 273).
Additional names, “generally depending on the point of view of the constituent speaking
at that moment” include “architectural psychology…environmental psychology…design
research…and environment behavior design research” (Demsky and Mack 2008, 273).
For purposes of this study, “environmental design research” will be used to describe the
field.
Behavior-based design guidelines
It is generally accepted within the field of EDR that for environmental design
research to positively impact the built environment, the findings of the research must be
shared with or translated for designers in a format that is understandable, practical, and
meaningful (Marcus and Francis 1998, Chapin and Marcus 1993, Reizenstein 1975,
Kantrowitz 1985, Schmidt 1985 and others). As noted, the creation of design guidelines
10
based on environmental design research findings is one such effort to present EDR to
designers for integration in practice. Design guidelines based on environmental design
research will be referred to as “behavior-based design guidelines” in this study. Nearly
twenty years ago, two authors of such design guidelines, Clare Cooper Marcus and David
Chapin (1993) noted the increasing variety of architectural and landscape environments
for which guidelines have been published, including housing, hospitals and healing
environments, children’s museums, battered women’s shelters, and many more (100).
This study is focused on design guidelines for urban open space, and a full discussion of
one collection of these guidelines, People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open
Space (Marcus and Francis 1998), is included later in this chapter. Further research is
suggested regarding the translation and application of environmental design research on
specific environments for specific users (children, the elderly, etc.)
Aesthetic design guidelines
Aesthetic design guidelines are different from the behavior-based design
guidelines explored in this study. Many American cities have adopted design guidelines
to “communicate the concept of community character and compatibility” (Habe 1989,
195). These guidelines often outline standards for building facades, setbacks, street
furnishings, and other features that impact the aesthetic character of the urban
environment. The ability for cities to extend aesthetic control was established in 1954,
before the growth of emergent field of environmental design research, when the Supreme
Court ruled that the government could “determine that the community should be beautiful
as well as healthy” (Delafons 2000, 164). In the introduction to her book Design Review:
Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, Brenda Scheer points out that more than 85% of
11
cities and towns have some type of [design] review (Scheer 1994). This review process
varies greatly among cities, and an increasing number have amended their guidelines to
create environments that are more friendly to the pedestrian, a goal that also drives many
behavior-based design guidelines. David Gosling (1990) notes this dual purpose of
guidelines that “seek to provide unity and visual coherence…(and) above all…a safe and
attractive environment for the pedestrian” (v). Despite this shared goal, much of the
content of these aesthetic guidelines has a different focus from that found in behavior-
based guidelines. Attention is drawn to these municipal guidelines because of their
ubiquitous nature, and to distinguish them from the design guidelines based specifically
on environmental design research.
Brief history of environmental design research
There is no comprehensive history of the field of environmental design research
that “illuminates the people, dates, studies, and landmark organizational events in their
historical and intellectual context and connects them to social forces, events, and trends
in design and the social and behavioral sciences” (Wener 2008, 283). Still, Wener cites
numerous examples of this “new approach or paradigm” about the intersection of the
built environment and behavioral science dating from the late 1950s and early 1960s
(Wener 2008, 284).
Clare Cooper Marcus, a prolific author and influential environmental design
researcher, notes that some of the most widely-known and widely-read authors from this
period, including Jane Jacobs and Kevin Lynch, provided inspiration for early researchers
in the field (Marcus 2009, 19). Jacobs published The Death and Life of Great American
Cities in 1961, an indictment of urban planning that ignored the economic benefits of
12
urban environments that met the social needs of individuals and communities. At the
same time, Kevin Lynch’s The Image of the City (1960) provided an early model for
methods used in environmental design research. Lynch’s observations and interviews
with individuals about their perceptions of their physical environment led to the concept
he calls “imageability,” and his vocabulary of paths, edges, nodes, landmarks, and
districts is still regularly used in design and planning curriculum today.
The first conference of the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA)
in 1969 marks an early milestone that gave a name to this new field. As recalled by
Marcus, the field began with the coalescence of designers and social scientists who “were
intent on exploring how design and form influence people’s use of – and satisfaction with
– the physical environment” (Marcus 2009, 19). Another early researcher and
practitioner, C.M. Deasy, offered a practical rationale for the burgeoning field; in Design
for Human Affairs, he states “the problems of our towns and cities are enormously
complicated human problems” (Deasy 1974, 166).
William H. Whyte: Pioneer
One of the most important and perhaps widely-recognized early environmental
design researchers was William “Holly” Whyte, who published The Social Life of Small
Urban Spaces in 1980 after a decade of research he called “The Street Life Project.”
Along with the book, Whyte produced a film by the same name, now considered a classic
in the field. Virtually every participant in this study mentioned seeing Whyte’s film,
which used time-lapse photography to record people’s behavior in urban public space.
Notably, many participants also stated that they were familiar with the book but had not
read it.
13
In the introduction to the book, Whyte describes his objective in characteristically
straightforward prose, “This book is about city spaces, why some work for people, and
some do not, and what the practical lessons may be” (Whyte 1980, 10). His research,
begun in 1970, was based on direct observation, a method that “had long been used for
the study of people in far-off lands…[but] not to any great extent in the U.S. city” (Whyte
1980, 10). He describes his research methods in detail in the film and the book. Whyte
and his team observed nineteen plazas and parks in New York City, as well as a number
of plazas in other cities, and made conclusions about design features that seemed to be
consistent in well-used spaces. The book includes text and photographs (see sample page
spread below) documenting Whyte’s observations of people in public space. The film
contains video footage of the same, narrated by Whyte.
Figure 1: The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Whyte 1980, 20-21), sample page spread
14
Whyte’s observations led to numerous findings, one of the most important of
which is that “what attracts people most, it would appear, is other people” (Whyte 1980,
19). His goal, then, was to discover what initially attracts people to a plaza. Whyte
concludes that the relationship of a plaza to the street is “far and away the most critical
design factor” (Whyte 1980, 54). The book is not presented as a collection of design
guidelines, but much of the information in it could be considered as such; it contains
scores of specific suggestions for how to design a well-used plaza based on the findings.
Whyte’s research informed significant amendments to New York City zoning regulations
in 1975 that required developers to make public spaces amenable to users. The
amendments included specific guidelines for seating, trees, retail frontage, lighting,
circulation, access, accessibility for disabled people, food, maintenance, orientation, and
elevation (Whyte 1980, 112). This study suggests that many of Whyte’s findings related
to these design factors have been absorbed by practitioners and become part of a common
knowledge base for urban open space design. See Appendix A for a summary of
Whyte’s findings.
Many of Whyte’s findings have been replicated in studies conducted by other
researchers, including Clare Cooper Marcus and Carolyn Francis, who cite Whyte in their
1998 book, People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space. In one area –
circulation patterns – Whyte’s findings were different. He found that people tend to stop
in the middle of primary circulation paths to talk with one another; Marcus and Francis
found that people stop to talk on the edges of spaces (Marcus and Francis 1998, 38).
They do not dwell on the discrepancies, however, and in many cases refer to Whyte’s
findings in their guidelines, “features that were most liked in the plazas closely reflected
15
Whyte’s prescriptions: food, water features or fountains, outdoor sitting, landscaping, and
sunny environments figured prominently” (Marcus and Francis 1998, 30).
The systematic study of human behavior as practiced by Whyte and others is one
of the fundamental research methods used in social research. Other methods include the
observation of physical traces in an environment, interviews with users, and
questionnaires or surveys. Whyte and his team conducted some informal interviews in
their research, but “mostly, we watched people to see what they did” (Whyte 1980, 16).
This study indicates that Whyte’s methods are well-respected by practitioners and that
they practice direct observation regularly, although they do not use the same rigorous
methods employed by Whyte. Indeed, social researchers agree it is not necessary to be
an expert to observe behavior; watching people is a basic information-gathering method,
as well as a favorite pastime of many. But researchers also agree that training in basic
observation and evaluation techniques allows for more accurate, sensitive, and critical
analysis of the implications of what one is seeing (Zeisel 2006, 191; Marcus and Francis
1998, 356, Babbie 1995, 6).
Translation
As mentioned, one of the central themes of the literature is the assertion by
researchers that “if environmental design research is to be useful, it must be translated in
some way into the language of the design process” (Chapin and Marcus 1993, 99). The
most effective methods for the translation of EDR have long been studied, and as noted,
the proliferation of behavior-based design guidelines for a variety of built environments
indicate the important role of design guidelines in this effort. Numerous early studies
contributed to the conclusion that design guidelines could be an effective method for
16
sharing environmental design research with practitioners. In a large and comprehensive
survey of architects in 1975, Janet Reizenstein, professor of architecture at the Harvard
Graduate School of Design, asked how they perceived environmental design research,
through what channels they were exposed to it, and to what extent they used it in their
practice. Reizenstein’s study concluded that “a large discrepancy exists between
cognizance of the field [environmental design research] and acknowledgement of its
importance on the one hand, and application of its findings and theories to design on the
other” (Reizenstein 1975, 32). The conclusions of the current study are different,
possibly due to the four decades that have passed from the original attention garnered by
this new field of research, and what appears to be the assimilation of many of its findings
into an accepted knowledge base about the social aspects of urban open space design.
Other early studies shared Reizenstein’s conclusion relative to the “application
gap” (Schmidt 1985, 335). In a paper from the 1985 EDRA conference proceedings,
Schmidt stated that
unfortunately, relatively little of the information from the field of environment-

behavior research comes into consideration in the design of the built environment.
Previous studies have indicated that architects are receptive to EBR information.
However the most preferred mechanism for information transfer has not been
identified.” (Schmidt 1985, 335)
Min Kantrowitz, an author, researcher, and faculty member at the University of Mexico
school of Architecture and Planning, wrote that “environment and behavior research can
only ‘make a difference’ if it is utilized and accepted…[and] there has been relatively
little progress in integrating E&B research into ‘standard’ design practice” (Kantrowitz
1985, 30). A different, and earlier perspective was that a new discipline altogether was
needed to bridge the gap between researchers and design professionals: “a middleman
17
who is acquainted with the design field as well as the social sciences to translate relevant
behavioral data into terms meaningful to designers” (Sommer 1969, 166). C.M. Deasy
countered this suggestion, “I have no real argument with that prospect… I still hold hope
that the planning [and design] professions will undertake this collaboration themselves”
(Deasy 1974, 142). More recently, and perhaps more applicable to this study, Richard
Wener (208) posits that “this gap may have been the result of overly ambitious and
somewhat idealistic notions of what and how much behavioral research could accomplish
in the design fields” (286). If those notions include a desire for design guidelines for
urban open space to be regularly incorporated into the design process, Wener’s assertion
is correct.
In sum, the challenge of making environmental design research available and
meaningful for practitioners has long been recognized and explored by experts in the
field. This study suggests, however, that even the most successful translations of
environmental design research may not have the kind of impact on practice that
researchers would hope for and expect.
Design guidelines
In 1993, David Chapin and Clare Cooper Marcus, environmental design
researchers and authors of numerous volumes of behavior-based design guidelines, co-
wrote an article on design guidelines and how they might impact practice. At the time,
Chapin was working on his Ph.D. in environmental psychology at the City University of
New York; he also had a Masters degree in architecture from the University of California
Berkeley and had studied with Christopher Alexander. Marcus was on the faculty at
Berkeley. All subsequent quotations in this section refer to this 1993 article.
18
Chapin and Marcus refer to studies by Reizenstein and Schmidt referenced earlier
in this paper that proposed that design guidelines were an effective way of translating
research for practitioners (100). They state their concurring opinion that
of the various possible ways that EDR might inform the design process,
guidelines seem the richest and most detailed, least coercive, most dependent on
logic and inspiration, and most tailored to the design process” (100).
Their rationale was, in part, that “one of the great strengths of a guideline
approach (but not much considered) is that it leads readers and writers both towards a
comprehensible way of thinking about environments” (110-111). They also describe
some of their concerns, based on their experience as authors of design guidelines.
Marcus had included guidelines at the end of a 1976 case study of a housing project, but
she “suspected most designers would not even pick up (the study)” (101), and thus would
never see the guidelines. Another concern was that she had not illustrated the guidelines,
and she knew that designers are often “attracted to images more than words” (101).
Marcus attempted to address these concerns in her 1986 book, Housing as if People
Mattered: Site-Design Guidelines for Medium-Density Family Housing, which was
formatted specifically to “appeal to design professionals” (101). She showed the
manuscript to numerous designers and incorporated their feedback on the format,
illustrations, and language used in the book (102). Marcus continued to pay careful
attention to the format of subsequent books of design guidelines, including People
Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space, first published as a monograph in
1976 and most recently updated in 1998.
Regarding the application of design guidelines in practice, Marcus explains that
she refers to guidelines on specific environments when she has been hired as a consultant
19
(104). She also states that design faculty have told her that students sometimes find
guidelines useful but that more often, students are not encouraged to use this research,
and that “when influential academic mentors discourage the use of research, it may take
some time, if ever, for a practicing professional to reconsider and to see research as a
useful component in decision-making” (105).
Marcus identifies the need for guidelines to be continually updated in order to
remain relevant, “new issues arise, new concerns become important…no set of
guidelines, however well conceived at the time, will necessarily be as relevant one or two
decades into the future” (105). At the conclusion of the article, four questions are raised
for further research regarding design guidelines (114):
i. What are the pros and cons of guidelines as translators of EDR?
ii. How do guidelines affect processes of design?
iii. How do guidelines affect the environments produced?
iv. How are design professionals affected by guidelines?
The authors also state that research is needed on “who uses guidelines; how they
use them; what kinds of settings have resulted from adopting guidelines; are they more
acceptable, comfortable, etc. for their uses than other, ‘non-guided’ environments?”
(114). Again, the above questions are similar to those explored in this study, but as noted
in the introduction, the findings suggest that study participants do not regularly use
design guidelines, thus raising the question of how to share the findings of EDR with
contemporary practitioners, if not through this method of translation.
Finally, Chapin and Marcus express their belief that the act of writing design
guidelines is an act of encoding values, inherently subjective and dependent on the values
20
of the authors. This subjectivity results in guidelines that do more than merely transmit
research results and thus demand an “honest statement” from the authors about their
perspective (118). Still, they believe that “guidelines are perhaps the most coherent
means to make designers, clients and potential users aware of the idea of asking rational
questions about environments” (118). The suggestion that guidelines can serve as a
framework for inquiry is of primary importance in this study and will be examined in the
recommendations of this paper. Chapin and Marcus conclude with a call for more
research on how guidelines are used in practice, research that might “point towards
especially clear directions for the entire field of environmental design research” (119).
Again, these are the questions that this study explores.
People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space
People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space (Marcus and Francis
1998) is an extensive volume of design guidelines based on the findings of research
conducted by professionals, as well as by Marcus’s graduate students in landscape
architecture at the University of California at Berkeley. The book summarizes many
sources of environmental design research and offers practical design guidelines for its
application. It is a book with an explicit goal to translate research findings into the
language of design. In the preface of People Places, Marcus and Francis quote C. M.
Deasy, ‘the purpose of planning or design is not to create a physical artifact, but a setting
for human behavior’ and they continue:
We realize that to use human behavior or social activities to inform

and shape the designed environment is not the approach of some
designers or the approach of most studio teachers. But we feel
strongly that this must be the approach. An approach based almost
exclusively on visual form leads either to the reproduction of
previously used “solutions” or to the proliferation of artistic
21
statements that pertain more to current design fashion than to the
needs of the public. We believe that aesthetic goals must be balanced
and merged with ecological needs, contextual issues, and user
preferences. (Marcus and Francis 1998, viii)
They outline their assumptions in the introduction, assumptions which are shared
by the author of this study:
People Places assumes that public life is thriving in the contemporary

industrialized city; that an important measure of the success of public open space
is its use; that the use and popularity of a space depend greatly on its location and
the details of its design; and last, that we must communicate what is currently
known about the linkages between design, location, and use. (Marcus and Francis
1998, 8)
One of the concerns expressed by Marcus and Francis is the cultural bias toward
white male users found in most of the research they reviewed, and they call for more
research related to ethnic, cultural, and gender differences in user preferences. Since the
publication of People Places, numerous researchers (Andersson 2011, Gehl 2010, 2006,
2001, Low 2005, 2002, Rofe 2007, and others) have addressed issues of culture,
ethnicity, and gender regarding social needs and preferences in the built environment.
This study also recognizes this bias in the environmental design research discussed with
participants and recommends further study of practitioners’ knowledge and use of more
current research on how diverse populations interact differently with public space.
This bias notwithstanding, the research translated as design guidelines in People
Places is the most comprehensive collection of research on urban environments that has
been amassed to date. The book begins with a typology of urban open space, offering
guidelines and case studies for each of six types: urban plazas, neighborhood parks,
campus outdoor spaces, outdoor spaces for the elderly, child care outdoor spaces, and
hospital outdoor spaces. Much of contemporary environmental design research focus on
22
specific environments for specific populations such as the elderly and children. In
conversations with the author at the 2012 EDRA conference, however, Sue Weidemann,
Ph.D. and Richard Wener, Ph.D. indicated that the section on urban plazas in People
Places (as well as William Whyte’s findings) is still generally considered relevant
research on urban open space. This section of the book is based on a body of research
published by professional researchers including Marcus, William Whyte, Kevin Lynch,
Camillo Sitte, and Jan Gehl, as well as case studies conducted by Marcus’s graduate
students. Design guidelines are presented for twenty elements of urban plazas: location,
size, visual complexity, uses and activities, potential service area, microclimate,
boundaries and transitions, subspaces, circulation, seating, planting, level changes, public
art, fountains, paving, food, programming, vending, information and signs, maintenance
and amenities. See Appendix B for a summary of the guidelines. Case studies that
highlight successful and unsuccessful elements of urban spaces are presented after the
guidelines.
The format of People Places is similar to Marcus’s earlier books of design
guidelines, although illustrations in early editions have been replaced with photographs,
based on feedback from designers about the inherent bias in illustrations. The following
sample page spread shows how images and diagrams are incorporated in the book,
although text is still the dominant element in the layout, as shown in figure 2 below. The
images are printed in black and white, with the exception of a section of color
photographs in the center of the book. The presentation of these design guidelines and
other sources for environmental design research, and the responses it generates among
practitioners, is examined critically in this study.
23
Figure 2: People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space (Marcus and Francis
1998, 42-43), sample page spread
Additional methods to communicate research to practitioners
Design guidelines are not the only method for sharing the findings of
environmental design research with those in the design professions. As the field of EDR
has matured, longstanding efforts have evolved, new avenues have developed, and books
on the subject continue to be published regularly. Still, within the past decade, leaders in
the field have voiced opinions that the research is not making the impact on the design
fields that it could or should:
Ever since its inception, this multi-disciplinary area of study has provided an
abundance of relevant research for architectural students, educators, and
practitioners. I have previously argued that this field has great potential for
enriching both architectural education and practice. Nonetheless, today that
potential is unrealized.” (Anthony 2004, 84)
24
At the EDRA conference in 2009, Marcus noted that despite all of these efforts, there is
still a “staggering lack of knowledge of these resources in the design professionals” and
that “…the primary mode for translating research has been through the conventional
approach of the haphazard application of salient research findings that support the
practitioner’s prevalent design philosophy,” a mode which she states is outdated and
ineffective and which must be changed (Marcus 2009, 21).
Following is a brief description of some of the current avenues for disseminating
environmental design research. An evaluation of these methods is beyond the scope of
this study, but interviewees had the opportunity to discuss their perceptions of the
methods during the interviews.
Project for Public Spaces
Project for Public Spaces (PPS) was founded in 1975 and is based on the work of
William (“Holly”) Whyte. As indicated on the PPS website, the organization is
a nonprofit planning, design and educational organization dedicated to helping

people create and sustain public spaces that build stronger communities. Our
pioneering ‘placemaking’ approach helps citizens transform their public spaces
into vital places that highlight local assets, spur rejuvenation and serve common
needs. (Project for Public Spaces 2012)
The organization offers many resources for its clients (public entities, private developers,
citizen’s groups, non-profit organizations, planning and design firms) including
workshops, planning, and training. Their approach to ‘placemaking’ is outlined in
Appendix C. In addition to the many resources available on its website, PPS posts a
database of 650 public spaces – streets, markets, neighborhoods, buildings, parks and
squares – with descriptions, images, and analysis by PPS staff and/or community
members. The PPS ‘Hall of Shame’ is part of this database and includes more than 60
25
public spaces designated as unresponsive to the social needs of the public. The criteria
for evaluation is not specified on the website, and the Hall of Shame has spurred
controversy and contributed to the perception among some designers that PPS is “anti-
design,” as noted by several study participants.
Research Design Connections
Research Design Connections (RDC) is an electronic newsletter available by paid
subscription, described on its website as a source that “distills the essence of high-quality
recent (environmental design) research and translates it from ‘science-ease’ into everyday
language” (Augustin 2012). The editor of RDC is Sally Augustin, Ph.D., a practicing
environmental psychologist, and the editorial board is made up of 14 leaders in the field
of environmental design research, including researchers, designers, and academics. In
addition to the newsletter, RDC offers consulting services for the design profession to
“apply environmental psychology…to develop powerful design options” (Augustin
2012).
Professional associations
The Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) is the largest
professional organization of its kind. Per the EDRA website, the organization is an
international, interdisciplinary organization founded in 1968 by design

professionals, social scientists, students, educators, and facility managers….(Its)
purpose is the advancement and dissemination of environmental design research,
thereby improving understanding of the interrelationships between people, their
built and natural surroundings, and helping to create environments responsive to
human needs. (Environmental Design Research Association 2012)
EDRA’s ongoing activities are of primary importance in the field. They include online
resources that offer current and archived published material for members, networking
groups for specialized areas in the field, numerous events and programs including the
26
annual conference, and a variety of awards including the Great Places Award, conferred
annually on projects that exemplify the link between research and practice.
The International Association for People-Environment Studies (IAPS) is a similar
organization, formed in 1981, with similar outreach activities: online and print resources,
network groups, and regular conferences and symposia. There are at least two other
international organizations with which IAPS and EDRA maintain relationships: Man-
Environment Research Association (MERA) in Japan, and People and Physical
Environment Research Association (PAPER) in Australia.
Professional journals
A number of peer-reviewed journals publish environmental design research, among other
kinds of research in the design and planning fields. The research in these journals,
however, is not widely read by practitioners. Key journals include:
 Architectural Research Quarterly
 Environment and Behavior
 Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
 Journal of Environmental Psychology
 Journal of Landscape Architecture
 Journal of Planning Literature
 Landscape Journal
 Places
Trade publications
Landscape Architecture Magazine, the publication of the American Society of
Landscape Architects, collaborates with Research Design Connections to provide
27
quarterly columns in the magazine that highlight current environmental design research.
The magazine also covers winners of the ASLA annual research awards, some of which
are related to environmental design research.
Books
A collection of books selected by the Environmental Design Research Association
is housed in the Architecture Research Center (ARC) at the James White Library at
Andrews University, many of which can be circulated. The ARC has also recently
established a store for EDRA books on Amazon.com. New books are published regularly
that add to the body of literature about how to design with people in mind. Three recent
titles focused on urban space are summarized below.
- Cities for People (2010) by Jan Gehl. Gehl is an internationally recognized architect,
researcher, and long-time proponent of design at the human scale. In the preface to
his newest book, Gehl notes that encouraging trends in city planning have resulted
from knowledge gained through decades of environmental design research.
On the whole city planning over the past 50 years has been problematic…Now,
after many years, a great deal of knowledge has been amassed on the connection
between physical form and human behavior. We have extensive information
about what can and should be done…Cities and residents have become very
active in crying out for people-oriented city planning…It is now generally
accepted that city life and regard for people in city space must have a key role in
the planning of cities and built-up areas…Caring for people in the city is an
important key for achieving more lively, safe, sustainable and healthy cities, all
goals of crucial importance in the 21st century. It is my hope that this book can
make a modest contribution to this important new orientation. (Gehl 2010, x-xi)
The book contains practical suggestions and hundreds of photographs from cities
worldwide (Paris, Oslo, Beijing, Melbourne, New York, Amman, Sendaii [Japan],
Curitiba [Brazil], etc.) illustrating various elements of a people-oriented urban
28
environment: people sitting on steps and benches, cobblestones as dividers, street
furniture, public art, programming, marketplaces, microclimates, etc. The sample
page layout below demonstrates the dominant role of the color photographs in the
format of Cities for People.
Figure 3: Cities for People (Gehl 2010, 144-145), sample page spread
In addition to photographs, there are numerous diagrams using a consistent design
language to illustrate the themes of the book. One example (see figure 4 below) depicts a
‘toolbox of quality criteria’ organized within three categories: protection, comfort, and
delight.
29
Source: Gehl, Gemzoe, Kirknaes, Sondergaard, “New City Life,” The Danish Architectural
Press, 2006. Further developed by Gehl Architects-Urban Quality Consultants, 2009.
Figure 4: Protection, Comfort, and Delight: 12 quality criteria for the city at eye level (Gehl
2010, 239)
The presentation of Gehl’s research is important to note. While there is still a
significant amount of explanatory text, the book is graphically-oriented. Much of the
same content has been explored in Whyte’s book and film, Social Life of Small Urban
30
Spaces (1980) and Marcus’s and Francis’s book of design guidelines, People Places:
Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space (1998), as well as in previous books by Gehl,
including Life Between Buildings (first published in 1971 and currently in its 6th English
language edition), and New City Spaces (coauthored with Lars Gemzøe in 2000.) The
study participants’ responses to differences in format among these volumes is explored in
Chapter 4.
- Environmental Design Research: the body, the city, the buildings in between (Cranz
and Pavlides 2011). This recently-published reader for architecture students is a
compilation of 42 articles originally published from 1969 – 2010. The authors’ goal
is to provide numerous social perspectives and encourage students to consider these
issues. The book has the following objectives: i) provide an interdisciplinary
introduction to the field of human-environment studies, ii) include multi-cultural
perspectives, iii) engage students in using and conducting environment behavior
research, iv) think critically about values embedded in design and their consequences
for people (Cranz and Pavlides 2011, back cover).
- Urban Open Space: Designing for User Needs. Case Study in Land and Community
Design (Francis 2003). This volume, published by the Landscape Architecture
Foundation, presents a synthesis of environment behavior research and a full case
study on Bryant Park illustrating successful people-oriented design. In the
introduction, the author states:
While considerable research has been done on needs and conflicts in open space,
no single document integrates all of this knowledge and makes it available to
professionals, students, and researchers. The purpose of this issue-based study is
to review and synthesize this knowledge into an accessible and useful document.
(Francis 2003, xi)
31
The book is a comprehensive, albeit relatively short, volume containing definitions,
lists of resources, a methodology for case studies, and the full Bryant Park case study.
It offers a different system for considering the needs of people in public space, using
the following six categories: comfort, relaxation, passive engagement, active
engagement, discovery, and fun (Francis 2003, 20). Again, while different from the
organization systems used by Marcus, Whyte, or Gehl, much of the content overlaps
and addresses similar design issues relative to human behavior. Whether it has
succeeded in its goal to make the knowledge accessible and useful to students,
designers, and researchers is difficult to determine.
Post-occupancy evaluation
Post-occupancy evaluation (POE), the “systematic evaluation of a designed space
from the user’s point of view” (Marcus and Francis 1998, 348) is the natural corollary of
environmental design research. As noted by Harold Proshansky, an early researcher in
the field, “the design professions can only begin to consider the implicit assumptions they
make about people as reflected in the spaces and places they create or design for them if
it is realized that an inherent part of their task is to evaluate their design efforts”
(Proshansky 1974, 79).
In People Places, Marcus and Francis devote the last chapter to specific
instructions on how to conduct a POE, a process for evaluation that “underlies virtually
all of the research drawn upon in this book” (Marcus and Francis 1998, ix). The authors
describe and illustrate two different levels of post-occupancy evaluation:
 Informed journalistic critique – The basic process for evaluation, appropriate for
beginning design students, using activity and participant observation.
32
 Post-occupancy evaluation – The more rigorous method for evaluating spaces that is
appropriate for advanced students, practitioners, and researchers.
The following discussion of the specific elements involved in each of these levels is
based on this chapter in People Places (Marcus and Francis 1998, 345-356).
In an informed journalistic critique, the research method employed is direct
observation – the fundamental research method required to begin to understand the
relationship between people and their environment. The goal for students is “to
encourage keen observation and thoughtful consideration of what is observed” (346).
This is the same primary goal that will be addressed in the recommendations of this
paper, in light of the study findings regarding practitioners’ reliance on intuition and their
own direct observations of people in public space. Table 1 on the following page
contains a summary of the description of an informed journalistic critique.
The more advanced research methods of a full post-occupancy evaluation are
carefully explained in the next section of the chapter in People Places. The methods
include activity and participant observation, as well as advanced methods that require
more training: messages from administration, behavior traces, activity mapping,
interviews, data summary, use analysis, problem definition and redesign
proposals/suggestions (349-354). Illustrations of sample site plans, data tables, bubble
diagrams, photographs, and redesign proposals are included with the descriptions of the
research methods. This is a rigorous evaluation process, but the authors state that it is
still appropriate for design students and practitioners to learn how to conduct this type of
evaluation (356). Two books are cited for more information on the data-gathering
methods described: John Zeisel’s Inquiry by Design (1981, since revised in 2006) and
33
Robert Bechtel, Robert Marans, and William Michelson (eds.), Methods in
Environmental and Behavioral Research (1987).
Table 1: Informed journalistic critique, an exercise for students

(Marcus and Francis 1998, 346-347)
Evaluative method  Activity observation

 Participant observation
Procedure  Visit study site at least twice for one hour (minimum)
 Visit during expected peak-use times
 Observe carefully: who is doing what, where, and with
whom?
 Take field notes on observations
 Become ‘participant observers’ on one visit, engaging in
a primary activity of the space. Do not assume others
will share your reactions
Recommended changes  Prepare a short list of suggested changes that could lead
to more successful ‘people places’
 Suggest changes that are structurally possible, but not
limited by anticipated costs
Evaluative Report  Write a descriptive essay that describes the evaluation
and contains the following:
- location and name of the place
- sketch of site plan
- description of place and surroundings
- description of activity and participant observations
- overall assessment of how the place works for
people (the major critical component of the essay)
- description and sketch of recommended changes
- illustrations and photographs integrated within the
text
34
The chapter in People Places is a blueprint for how to make careful, sensitive,
accurate, and informed observations that can and should directly impact design decisions.
The authors describe four settings in which they believe POEs could be useful (345):
1. Educational setting where students can learn a method of research and gain a
“much deeper understanding of how people and places interact”
2. Professional setting where the task is to redesign a space
3. Professional setting where the task is to design a new space
4. Staff development in a professional setting during down-time between projects
They also posit three reasons why more POEs are not conducted in professional practice
(345):
1. Financial and time constraints
2. Some designers and clients could find the process, “which may reveal mistakes or
oversights,” threatening
3. Lack of familiarity with social research methods
One final reason suggested for the lack of regular evaluation of public space is that the
professional magazines of the design community (including Landscape Architecture
Magazine)
do not encourage critical articles, believing their readers only want to see neutral,
descriptive, highly illustrated accounts of new projects. This is unfortunate and
places design at odds with other creative endeavors (movies, plays, fiction, art)
where both journalistic and specialized magazine critiques are routine. (Marcus
and Francis 1998, 356)
There is, however, at least one example of a comprehensive post-occupancy
evaluation published in Landscape Architecture Magazine (LAM) that sparked a
discussion among practitioners and researchers. Teardrop Park, located in Manhattan’s
35
Battery Park City and designed by Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, has won
numerous design awards but was also placed in the ‘Hall of Shame,’ the collection of
landscapes that are unresponsive to the needs of the public, according to the Project for
Public Spaces. After the project was placed in the Hall of Shame, Robin Moore, a
recognized expert in children’s play environments, professor of landscape architecture
and director of the National Learning Initiative, College of Design, North Carolina State
University, and principal at MIG design firm, performed a post-occupancy evaluation
that was published in LAM. Moore and his team conducted more than nine person-hours
of evaluative research including user observations, behavior mapping, and informal
interviews. They collected over 1,380 data points on an average number of 115 users per
round of mapping (Moore 2007, 136-137) and their results suggest that the park is well-
used and well-loved. Moore states that based on the POE, Teardrop Park “deserves to be
praised as a successful public space rather than placed in a category of shame” and
requests that PPS make a greater effort to “gather evidence that supports their arguments”
(Moore 2007, 135) in the future. These divergent opinions point to difficulties that arise
when different criteria are used to evaluate the social success of the designed landscape.
This case is particularly interesting because Moore (as a researcher and
practitioner) and Project for Public Spaces are both widely-known for their commitment
to the design of public space that supports human development and interaction. Yet even
among these presumably sympathetic parties, there is disagreement.
Bill Thompson, former editor of Landscape Architecture Magazine, remarked
that PPS has “ruffled the feathers of many landscape architects” (Thompson 2007, 11) in
its critiques of urban landscapes. In the above example, the “ruffled feathers” were those
36
of a designer who is also an expert in environmental design research. Thompson’s
message is clear, however – that POEs are an invaluable tool to understand how
landscapes function for those who use them. He argues that critiques by PPS (and others)
are valuable in the field because of the conversations they can generate, yet he asks “what
would it take for landscape architects to initiate POEs just because they want to know
whether people love the places they create?” (Thompson 2007, 11).
In response to Thompson’s question, a number of professionals and students
wrote letters to the editor of the magazine. One recurring suggestion was to incorporate
POEs in the ASLA awards process by requiring designers to include a POE of their
project with their submission. Other suggestions included: teach students how to
conduct POEs of recently designed landscapes, thereby reducing costs for the
professional; encourage public and private clients to require POEs in their requests for
proposals; and regularly publish POEs in Landscape Architecture Magazine (Drum 2008,
19). These suggestions are extremely relevant to this study. As will be discussed in
Chapter 4, the findings of the study could be considered a rationale based on professional
practice for the critical importance for students and practitioners to understand basic
methods for evaluating public space based on direct observation. The informed
journalistic critique outlined in People Places should be a baseline by which urban open
space is routinely evaluated by design students and practicing designers.
University design curricula
In a recent EDRA address, Marcus reflected on her attempts in the early to mid-
1970s to incorporate environmental design research into the curriculum at the University
of California Berkeley, where she was a faculty member in the Landscape Architecture
37
Department. She suggested a course on environment and behavior to her department
head, who stated, “maybe one day we can afford such a luxury;” Marcus recalled her
reply, “I trust one day it will be seen as a necessity, not a luxury” (Marcus 2009, 19). An
examination of the current curricula in architecture and landscape architecture university
programs shows that this day has not arrived.
Kathryn Anthony, a practicing architect and former chair of the Design Program
Faculty at the School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
examined the role of environmental design research in national standards for architectural
education in a 2004 study. Anthony states “most American architectural students
graduate with virtually no exposure to this field,” and she continues “the absence of
environment-behavior [research] in required architectural curricula lies in the
accreditation process that determines standards to which all American architectural
schools must adhere” (Anthony 2004, 84). At the time, the National Architectural
Accrediting Board (NAAB) evaluated schools of architecture on the basis of 37 criteria
for which students must meet one of three levels: awareness, understanding, and ability,
with awareness being the lowest and ability being the highest level. She explains that the
criterion related to human behavior is described as ‘awareness of the theories and
methods of inquiry that seek to clarify the relationships between human behavior and the
physical environment’ (Anthony 2004, 84). Anthony contends that faculty can therefore
give “lip service” to the field, and that students, lacking any accountability to “real clients
or users” can be led to believe that they are “irrelevant at best, and at worst, obstructions
who interfere with the creation of good design” (84). In 2009 the NAAB changed the
accreditation standards to include only two levels of accomplishment: understanding and
38
ability, with ability being the higher level of required competency. A level of
“understanding” is now required for “the role of applied research in determining function,
form, and systems and their impact on human conditions and behavior” (NAAB 2009). It
is unclear how the level of student achievement is measured.
In the field of landscape architecture, the Landscape Architectural Accreditation
Board (LAAB) identifies eleven specific areas in the ‘professional curriculum’ for
undergraduate and graduate education programs. Specific or measurable levels of student
achievement are not described, other than that “student work and other accomplishments
demonstrate that the curriculum is providing students with the appropriate content to
enter the profession” (LAAB 2010). The eleven identified areas of study are as follows:
1. History, theory and criticism

2. Natural and cultural systems including principles of sustainability
3. Public policy and regulation
4. Design, planning and management at various scales and applications including
but not limited to pedestrian and vehicular circulation, grading drainage and
storm water management
5. Site design and implementation: materials, methods, technologies, and
application
6. Construction documentation and administration
7. Written, verbal and visual communication
8. Professional practice
9. Professional values and ethics
10. Plants and ecosystems
11. Computer applications and other advanced technology
The study, application, or even basic level of awareness of environmental design
research is not included in the required curriculum. This study recommends a survey of
accredited landscape architecture programs to determine whether elective courses in
environmental design research are offered to students. Still, as stated by Anthony (2004),
39
the fact that the subject is not required for accreditation has significant implications in the
field, as most students entering the profession have not been exposed to such research.
Anthony offers a number of suggestions for how to incorporate environmental
design research into design curricula: require students to complete community service
design projects; encourage them to attend and present at EDRA, IAPS and other
conferences; and expose students to the leading professional journals in the field
(Anthony 2004, 86). She also provides a list of “classic authors whose texts every
architecture student should know” (Anthony 2004, 87). There are twelve texts on the list;
she has condensed the body of research into a collection that she believes would be
manageable for students. Of the twelve books on Anthony’s list, eight were published in
the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. (Note: Two important books focused on landscape are not
included in this list: With People in Mind (Kaplan, Kaplan, and Ryan 1998) and
Humanscape: Environments for People (Kaplan and Kaplan 1982).) The complete list
of texts is included as Appendix D.
The findings of this study lead to recommendations for an alternate approach to
exposing design students to environmental design research, predicated on what the data
show about its use in professional practice.
Landscape Architectural Graphic Standards
This volume, edited by Leonard J. Hopper, FASLA, is found in all professional
landscape architecture offices and includes legal requirements for virtually every element
of public (and private) space design. It is over 1,000 pages and divided into four parts:
40
1. Practice of Landscape Architecture (approximately 60 pages)
- general, construction documentation, environmental and legal concerns,
project administration
2. Standards and Guidelines (approximately 230 pages)
- human factors, environmental factors, cultural factors, security
considerations, site planning, circulation, accessibility
3. Process, Implementation, and Application (approximately 600 pages)
- construction, water supply, storm water, site amenities, hazard control,
parks and recreation, restoration and remediation
4. Materials (approximately 150 pages)
The human factors presented in the second section include important elements of
environmental design research, broken down into two sections: i) human dimensions and
ii) human nature and spatial relationships (Hopper 2007, 67, 76-78). While the
discussions are very brief, it is encouraging to note that this information is included in the
text at all. No mention is made, however, of the environmental design research that
yielded the findings presented in the volume.
Sustainable Site Initiative™
As noted in the introduction, the Sustainable Sites Initiative™ (SITES) is a
relatively new effort, modeled after the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Green Building Rating System (LEED certification) of the U.S. Green Building Council,
to “establish and encourage sustainable practices in landscape design, construction,
operations, and maintenance” (Sustainable Sites Initiative 2009, 2). The initiative
includes a series of performance benchmarks for which designers, developers, planners,
41
and others can earn credits for projects they submit for certification. Human health and
well-being is one of the categories included in the benchmarks, a sign of the growing
acknowledgement of the importance of the ‘human side’ of sustainability by the
profession.
The SITES Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks (2009) are modeled on the
more established LEED certification program. Of the 250 potential points that can be
earned by a project, 32 points (13% of the total) are within the human health and well-
being category. Two specific areas within that section are directly related to
environmental design research: Credit 6.7: Provide views of vegetation and quiet outdoor
spaces for mental restoration, and Credit 6.8: Provide outdoor spaces for social
interaction. Specific elements within these credits include: providing a variety of seating
within defined spaces, minimizing noise, creating favorable microclimates, providing
access to vegetation, providing opportunities for recreation, and providing amenities such
as food concessions, picnic/dining areas, and outdoor auditoriums (Sustainable Sites
Initiative 2009, 161-167), all of which have been carefully studied by environmental
design researchers. Two books: Marcus’s People Places and Whyte’s Social Life of
Small Urban Spaces, are cited as resources in the guidelines for those who want to better
understand the benchmarks and earn the associated credits.
Summary
There are many different monikers for the study of the inextricable link between
people and their environment. This study will show that despite some uncertainty among
practicing landscape architects about what is meant by the specific term “environmental
design research,” the field has, in fact, had a positive, albeit indirect, impact on the
42
designers who participated in this study. Many of these designers entered the field of
landscape architecture when some of the earliest research on urban open space was being
conducted, and their perspective and experience with EDR suggest that the field still has
the potential to greatly enhance professional practice. The realization of this potential is
dependent on how researchers and practitioners interact, how (and what) information is
shared between the professions, and how future designers understand and participate in
environmental design research.
Within the field of EDR, researchers have long grappled with how to translate the
findings of their research on urban open space (and other environments) for use by
practitioners. These findings could be considered guiding principles for how to design
public space that will meet the needs of those who use it, and conversations with the
study participants suggest that they are keenly aware of many of these principles. Some
environmental design researchers have developed and published translations of their
findings in the form of design guidelines; others have published what could be considered
raw data generated by their research in the form of photographs or video footage of
people in public space. The responses of the study participants to these different
approaches for communicating environmental design research will be discussed in the
following chapters.
43
CHAPTER 3
STUDY METHODOLOGY
Selection of participants
Landscape architects who are regarded as leaders in the field were invited to
participate in the study because their designs for urban open space are the ones that are
publicized, recognized, talked about, written about, and possibly emulated by students
and professionals. Their design philosophies and practices have had a major impact on
the profession, and therefore, on the built environment. The primary trade publication for
the profession, Landscape Architecture Magazine (LAM), plays a major role in
determining which designers and which projects are considered exemplary within the
profession. The magazine publishes illustrated features on design projects, as well as
extensive coverage of the projects that win the annual ASLA design awards. For this
study, the last three years (2009 – 2011) of LAM were reviewed to identify design firms
that were featured and/or won ASLA awards for their design of an urban open space.
Twenty designers were identified through this process as potential study participants.
Prior to recruiting participants for the study, the project was approved by the
University of Massachusetts Institutional Review Board under an expedited review
process. Once approval was granted, a package was sent to the founding principal at the
firm, or in several cases to the principal who was identified as the lead on the qualifying
project. The package included i) cover letter, ii) project summary and consent form, and
iii) interview process and proposed questions. These documents are included as
Appendices E, F, and G.
44
Approximately two weeks after these packages were sent, each firm was
contacted by phone to inquire whether the designers were willing to participate in the
study. Twelve designers agreed to be interviewed for the study. Seven of the designers
were the founders or co-founders of their firms, and the other five were experienced
principals or partners.
Interview process
The interview process was based on Holstein and Gubrium’s ‘active interview,’
an approach that is “appropriate in those instances when the researcher is interested in the
subjective interpretations, or the process of interpretation more generally, even for
ostensibly well-defined information” (Holstein and Gubrium 1995, 73). They describe
the active interview as flexible, and directly and immediately informed by careful
listening to the respondents, as a “conversation, but not without a guiding purpose or
plan” (Holstein and Gubrium 1995, 76).
Based on this methodology, the interview questions were revised throughout the
month-long process of conducting the interviews. During each conversation, the study
participants’ responses to the opening questions shaped the remainder of the interview.
The questions below were the guiding framework for the interviews:
1. Are you familiar with the field of research on social behavior in public space (often
called environmental design research) and if so, do you recall how and when were
you first introduced to it?
2. Are you familiar with design guidelines that are based on this research?
3. In what ways does your understanding of this research (and design guidelines, if
applicable) impact you when you are designing urban open space?
4. At what point in the design process is this research (and design guidelines, if
applicable) part of the discussion in your office?
45
5. In your firm, do designers have access to the research, and if so, do they refer to it in
their design process?
6. Are there methods for sharing or disseminating this research that you believe would
be useful in current practice?
7. Do your clients seem to be aware that there is a body of research on social behavior in
public space?
8. How are the social aspects of design part of your process when preparing entries for
design competitions?
9. Do you consider post occupancy evaluation to be an effective tool for evaluating a

space? Is it something that is done in a formal or informal way at your firm?
10. Do you have additional comments about this topic that you would like to make?
Prior to conducting the interviews, consent forms were collected from each
participant. Each participant gave permission for the interview to be audio-taped. Four
of the interviews were conducted in person, one was on Skype, and seven were phone
conversations. The length of the interviews ranged from 30 minutes to 45 minutes. Ten
were fully transcribed and two were partially transcribed.
Analysis process
The third edition of Basics of Qualitative Research by Juliet Corbin and Anselm
Strauss provided the theoretical basis and process for the analysis of the interviews. The
overarching goal was to discover and present new ways of thinking about the questions
and topic at hand (Corbin and Strauss 2008, 302). The study was not designed to develop
theory, but rather to build a rich description of the issue: how environmental design
research is used and perceived by leading landscape architects. The analysis process
included multiple readings of each transcription, coding and writing memos, generating
concepts and categories, and diagramming.
46
Coding is the term for “extracting concepts from raw data and developing them in
terms of their properties and dimensions,” and memos are “written records that contain
the products of analysis” (Corbin and Strauss 2008, 159). The first memos were written
after the initial interview because “being immersed in data analysis during collection
provides a sense of direction, promotes greater sensitivity to data, and enables the
researcher to redirect and revise interview questions or observations as he or she
proceeds” (Corbin and Strauss 2008, 58). Following is an example of one of these early
memos.
Participant: I think we must all have a chemical reaction to being in a place where
there’s a lot of people. Being out among people is just chemically good, it feels
good. And being in places that are breathtaking, and with people, and they’re
relatively clean, is intrinsically good. It makes people want to stay.
Here the participant talks about social behavior in beautiful clean spaces as being
physiologically good for us. This seems advanced. It is also what is incorporated
in the Sustainable Sites guidelines – human health and well-being. I wonder how
many designers even think about this in such specific terms. We all know it’s
nice to be outside. But there is actual scientific evidence to back this up. Maybe
it really would help to have a compendium, a database, an encyclopedia of these
findings. Does RDC do this? Is it searchable?
All interviews were fully coded and memos were written as part of the process of
uncovering common themes. Through an iterative process, concepts and categories were
generated to develop a deep understanding of the data. Concepts are “words that stand
for ideas contained in data…they are interpretations, the products of analysis,” and
categories are “higher-level concepts under which analysts group lower-level concepts
according to shared properties. Categories are sometimes referred to as themes [as they
will be in this study.] They represent relative phenomena and enable the analyst to
reduce and combine data” (Corbin and Strauss 2008, 159). Diagrams were also used
throughout the analysis process as a visual tool to conceptualize relationships between
47
concepts. Diagrams help researchers to “organize data, keep a record of concepts and the
relationships between them, integrate ideas, and explain findings to colleagues and others
in very systematic and organized ways….Diagrams reduce data to their essence” (Corbin
and Strauss 2008, 125). The findings of the analysis are presented in the following
chapter.
48
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
Shift in research question
There was a fundamental shift in the research questions as a result of the earliest
stage of analysis of the interviews, as mentioned in the introduction of this paper. The
original goals and research questions for the study were largely focused on how design
guidelines based on environmental design research were used and perceived in
contemporary practice. The assumption was that a practitioner’s use of behavior-based
design guidelines would be an indication of the extent to which he or she valued and
applied environmental design research in professional practice.
The earliest interviews revealed, and subsequent interviews confirmed, however,
that study participants do not use design guidelines based on environmental design
research in their design process for urban open space. Most participants were not aware
that these kinds of guidelines exist. Many were also unfamiliar with the term
“environmental design research,” or expressed some degree of uncertainty about what it
meant and what it encompassed. They were, however, knowledgeable about many of the
principles of good social design that EDR has generated and tested over the last five
decades, for example the important role of seating, sun and shade, choice, sight lines, and
certain amenities in public space. This perceived distinction between research and what
could be considered generally-accepted principles that have evolved from it is central to
the analysis, as well as to the recommendations of this study. Based on this important
49
and overarching finding, the most relevant research question is not how environmental
design research or behavior-based design guidelines can be better integrated with
practice, but rather how a deeper understanding and awareness of the guiding principles
for successful social space could be fostered among students and professionals.
Context
The participants in this study represent a small sample of high-profile
practitioners of landscape architecture. They were recruited due to their leading role in
the profession, as evidenced by the publicity and recognition their projects have received
by the professional association (ASLA) and its publication, Landscape Architecture
Magazine. It is acknowledged that this sample does not necessarily reflect the views or
the knowledge of all landscape architecture practitioners relative to environmental design
research. This group of participants was chosen because their projects are the ones that,
due to their visibility, are discussed in practice and in university settings. Their high-
profile status may or may not impact their views of environmental design research in
particular, or their design philosophies in general.
It is possible that one of the reasons the participants agreed to be a part of this
study is that they have a particular interest in the social aspects of design and may
therefore place a higher priority on it than do other practicing landscape architects. In the
interview process, many (but not all) noted that their personal interest in the social
aspects of public space contributed to a greater level of exposure and emphasis on the
topic in their design education and early professional experience.
50
Themes
The themes identified in the data are presented below. Representative quotes are
included in this discussion, as the participants’ thoughtful and insightful articulation of
the subject is the best way to convey the overall tenor of the interviews and the themes
that emerged.
Expressions of uncertainty and value
The first question of the interview was aimed at understanding the participants’
basic level of familiarity with the field of environmental design research. Many
participants expressed an uncertainty about what the field entailed and stated that they
were largely unaware of current research activities. Comments included:
 I’m probably not as familiar with the field as I should be.
 I’ll tell you what my interpretation of it is, and you can tell me if I’m right.
 I know about EDRA…EDRA right? Actually one of our projects won one of their
awards one year and they used to put out Places Magazine but I haven’t seen that
anymore. So I do not know the details of their research, but I do know that they have
been doing such a thing.
As the interviews progressed, however, it became clear that all of the participants,
including the ones who made the above statements, were very familiar with the work of
some of the key figures in the field, particularly William Whyte and Jan Gehl. One
participant mentioned five other researchers: Georg Simmel, E.T. Hall, B.F. Skinner,
Robin Moore, and Kevin Lynch; several more researchers were mentioned by other
participants.
More importantly, all of the participants referenced many of the principles for
successful social space that have been borne out by this research. In other words, they
are very familiar with the findings of the social research conducted in the early years of
51
the field of EDR, but it seems they do not directly associate this knowledge with a
familiarity of the field. For example, every participant mentioned William Whyte’s work
and his methodology for direct observation. One participant noted the importance of
being aware of critiques of Whyte’s work. Whyte’s findings appear to have become part
of a generally accepted knowledge base about social behavior in public space, rather than
being directly associated with the field known as environmental design research. This
could simply indicate that practitioners are unfamiliar with the phrase “environmental
design research” used by academic researchers as an umbrella term for research on
human behavior and the environment.
Whether or not they considered themselves knowledgeable about the field of
EDR, most of the participants made express statements of value regarding the importance
of designing public space that works for people. They did not explicitly relate these
statements to environmental design research. Examples include:
 I’m a true believer that if something doesn’t work because it has been designed to
look or be a certain way and yet that way doesn’t include the human comforts, then I
think that’s a flawed design.
 It’s always first and foremost in our design approach to things, in terms of looking at
public spaces.
 You can make a really beautiful place that stands on its own with nobody in it –
compositionally, experientially, spatially, look at it from the air, look at it from the
ground and on all those levels you think that’s a really beautiful, gorgeous place. But
it has to be just as compelling and useful and powerful when it’s full of people.
 The beauty is that it goes beyond aesthetics, it goes beyond what color is it, what are
the plants, what’s the paving? It’s so far beyond that, it’s all about the critical
components, you know… is there seating, is there retail that faces the street, do you
activate the street, are there good edges, all of that stuff which is so much more
compelling than ‘wow, that’s a really nice tree or that’s a pretty paving pattern.’
 I have always felt it’s important that you are cognizant or consider the place of people
in your design, and I don’t think any design is successful unless people use it well.
52
Personal connection
Many of the participants expressed an early personal interest in the social aspects
of design as a design student or young professional. This interest was often sparked and
encouraged by a professor or colleague. For most, the subject was not required in their
education, but rather something that they gravitated toward:
 It became part of the dialogue in studio as it was tangentially related to other issues.
Depending on your level of interest, that dialogue was more or less.
 My exposure was purely through those great professors that are inspired, and it sort of
sticks in your brain.
 I remember a little light bulb going off when I started reading about Karl Linn in
school, and making these connections between what we do and sociology and
psychology, because what we do is for people and that is what it’s all about.
 I’m intimately fascinated with how people use urban space…some of that is self-
initiative to seek it out. Also, we had a partner here who ate, drank, and slept public
space, and through him and his enthusiasm I got exposed to real-life examples in real-
life projects where I got an opportunity to use these tools and this way of thinking.
The corollary to this finding is that if a design student or young professional is not
inherently interested in the field or does not come into contact with someone who is, their
exposure to it will be minimal since it is not required in accredited landscape architecture
education. Some of the participants stated that they have not had a particular interest in
the research, but during the interviews they, along with the other participants,
demonstrated a deep knowledge of the findings of the research:
 I will be upfront and honest and say that I never focused explicitly and directly on
that research nor the specific application or results of that research.
 I’ve never, and I don’t think my partners have, engaged in any specific study or
aligned ourselves with any professional initiative. We’ve worked following our own
interests and observations and individual reading, wherever our inclination has taken
us separately.
53
One of the above participants mentioned that a recent project completed by his
firm won the relatively new Urban Land Institute Amanda Burden Urban Open Space
Award and remarked that “it was a huge honor to even make the short list.” The award
was founded in 2010 by Amanda Burden, commissioner of the New York City
Department of City Planning, to “celebrate and promote vibrant urban open spaces that
enrich and revitalize communities” (Urban Land Institute, 2012). This apparent
contradiction between a stated lack of interest in the field of environmental design
research and a demonstrated application of its findings in practice speaks again to a
disconnect between the participants’ perception of the research as a field of study, and the
principles of good social design that the research has generated.
Observation as research: a spectrum
One of the most significant findings of the study is that nearly every participant
stated their belief that in order for a designer to fully understand how people behave in
public space, the designer must regularly and critically observe people in public space.
Participants stated that they engage in this practice frequently, often sketching or taking
photographs to record what is observed.
 The kind of photography I’ve trained myself to do after all these years is to really try
to record people, how they use the space, and be aware of what the sun’s doing, what
the temperature’s like, is it noon when everybody’s out for lunch, is it the sleepy
afternoon hours before the dinner crowd comes back, is it a weekend? I try to be
conscious of all those things.
 We don’t know what the research is, but we’re making our own assessments about
spaces we’ve been in, and we just always have our cameras with us.
The designers expressed an understanding that the act of direct observation is the most
basic method of social research. They recognized and acknowledged that their
observation techniques would not fulfill requirements for academic social research, but in
54
their view this does not diminish the importance of the process or the knowledge that can
be gained from it:
 There are different levels, call it scientific observation, to rules of thumb, to just
personal experience from observing spaces and thinking about spaces.
 We recorded it all. We probably didn’t follow Holly Whyte’s methodology to the tee,
but we took a lot of photographs…and we were very strategic about how we did it.
The participants suggest that it is not enough to study and understand the observations
made by others (environmental design researchers like William Whyte, Jan Gehl, and
others) without also spending time personally observing people in public space:
 I’m a student of these great authors and observers of public space use, and I really
appreciate the work they put into it, and so I think I kind of bury that intuitively. But
I can’t place enough importance on site observation and taking the time to go out and
watch the way a space is being used.
 It really involves getting out there and spending time really fully understanding urban
neighborhoods, block by block, and that’s the kind of research I do. It just doesn’t
get documented. I don’t know if just better awareness of Holly Whyte’s book would
do much.
 It is a designer’s obligation to take all manner of observations in the world, their own
and others, and to congeal them into something, and I don’t mean that it’s magical at
all, and it’s not really even a black box. It’s knowledge and I think designers size the
situation up and they apply knowledge.
Intuition
Participants cited intuition as the primary source on which they base design
decisions about the social aspects of public space. All but one participant used the term
“intuition” or “intuitive” when describing their design process. Some acknowledged that
the research has “seeped in” and become a part of their thinking, but none expressed an
explicit causal relationship between the research and their intuition. Rather, the
relationship was described as one in which environmental design research reinforces their
55
intuition. For these designers, research is considered a less important factor than their
own intuition in terms of its impact on design decisions:
 For me (the social aspects of design) have always been an intuitive thing rather than
an overly rationalized research thing. What that means is that when people have done
research on it, I have probably caught aspects of that and logged it into my brain, but
without overtly referring to it as I design.
 There is sort of an innate sense of what will work for people and what won’t, but it’s
not based on a tight grasp of the research or an ongoing pursuit of that information.
It’s more in the background, informing decisions in a somewhat looser way.
 (This particular site) needed a strong spatial identity, and my immediate instinct was
that it would be a grove of trees: ‘I’ll meet you in the shade of the trees.’ It wasn’t
through any kind of in-depth consideration of what would socially be right or what
the ingredients of a good social space are. Really more intuitive than that.
 Now after freshly reading the Jan Gehl book it makes me think there were a lot of
things (in a recent project) that we intuitively thought about.
 Part of the design process is intuitive, a lot of it is, just the power of observation and
how you as a human being go and move around the world. I have always been in
tune with that, so to a certain extent it hasn’t mattered to me what some study says.
This perceived dichotomy between intuition and research has been noted in the
literature and is not unexpected. In her 1975 study, Reizenstein cited correspondence
with a colleague in the Department of Architecture at the University of Michigan and
suggested that “a major source of difficulty in collaboration between research and design
is that both types of professionals feel that ‘intuitive judgment and scientific research are
mutually exclusive rather than mutually enhancing or even mutually dependent’”
(Reizenstein 1975, 32). The diagram on the next page simplifies this difference in
perspective among researchers and practitioners about the role of intuition, research
findings, and the translation of those findings, relative to design practice.
56
Figure 5: Intuition and research findings in practice: two perspectives
This finding, along with the previous finding that the participants consider
personal observations (albeit outside strict research methodologies) to be of primary
importance to an understanding of how people behave in public space, is examined
further in the discussion of the findings at the end of this chapter and in the
recommendations of this paper.
Design process and design guidelines
When asked to consider how the social aspects of design and/or research on
human behavior were a part of their design process, participants described the process as
“loose” and “unstructured.”
 We don't consciously use the resources you are asking about, though I am sure the
principles certainly enter into how we design. I would say that it informs a lot of our
design decisions kind of informally.
 The social issues are just…a preoccupation. We don’t have a formula or set way that
we do it, but it’s just something as kind of a background to how we approach our
sites.
57
 There will be times when we will remind one another of the need for making the
place useful for people. There is always some influence at every level and a lot of
discourse, a lot of discussion. It generally happens through conversation, through
experience, gentle reminders and nudging, again at all levels.
 We talk about the social piece a lot in the beginning. But it doesn’t ever really go
away. Even if outwardly to a client it seems like we’re not talking about it as much,
certainly internally, it’s just a part of the dialogue. In the same way that aesthetics
and beauty and sensory issues or all of those things remain part of the dialogue.
 We have no explicit kind of framework or methodology for that. I would say we talk
about the social in very general terms.
One explanation that designers do not refer to environmental design research in a
structured way is that existing translations of research findings are not viewed as useful.
As described in the literature review, in the longstanding debate about how to translate
research findings for use in practice, design guidelines have been viewed by some as
perhaps the most effective method of translation (Sommer 1969; Reizenstein 1975;
Schmidt 1985; Chapin and Marcus 1993; Marcus and Francis 1998; and Marcus 1999).
The participants of this study, however, have not embraced them; none of them use
behavior-based design guidelines in their practice. The study suggests a perception
among practitioners that design guidelines are specific rules about specific elements of
design, and the participants believe that these rules are not applicable to every project.
Many design guidelines are, in fact, reminders of basic elements to consider when
designing public space – make the most of sunlight, provide enough comfortable seating,
use vegetation to create variety – and suggestions for how this might be accomplished.
Presented as guidelines, however, practitioners do not view these suggestions as helpful,
nor do they refer to them when designing:
 We never use them.
58
 It’s not about taking observations out of E.T. Hall about the right distance, it’s really
just finding out what works. That’s more like the working journeyman like me, it’s
kind of what we do.
 It’s okay that researchers are out there documenting behavior. It’s not so okay in my
view that researchers are turning that into strictures for how to design. It’s great to
know Holly Whyte’s observations…It’s not at all right to portray them as a set of
rules.
 We don’t use any sort of specific guidelines because every project and client is
different, and the conditions are different.
 Design guidelines may be more useful in an academic setting, in exposing students to

the field, creating a foundation that would be used when they enter the profession.
 We sort of reinvent the wheel, not all of the time, but we’ll make our own…Out of
precedent, we pull together our own design guidelines that are specific to the project
and to the site.
The perception of design guidelines, and by extension research findings in
general, as a “set of rules” is unfortunate. It diminishes what could be a symbiotic
relationship between what researchers have found through systematic, documented
observations of people in public space, and what designers regularly find through their
own less formal observation process. Rather than reinforcing, enriching, challenging,
and informing one another’s methods and findings, researchers and designers are placed
at odds. One indication of this conflict is the perception among several participants of the
“anti-design” position of Project for Public Spaces. This conflict, interestingly, was not
viewed as entirely negative by at least one participant:
 I like to know that there are some extreme opinions out there because from them
comes a discourse that shakes things up and makes people question things, and is an
important part of growth and evolution. But what’s missing is mutual respect and
listening to one another.
59
Research in practice
Several participants noted that a ‘checklist’ generated by environmental design
research can sometimes be useful at the conclusion of the design process, though they did
not state whether design modifications ever result from this type of review. This finding
reinforces the idea that the principles of good social space that have come from EDR and
are now considered common knowledge or intuition by designers, while research is
perceived primarily as a checklist that is not helpful during the design process:
 Designers use intuition first, do the design, and then there’s always that ‘oh my god’
moment when it’s going before the client, and you know you’re going to be asked
questions. And that’s where you go and you find as many checklists as you can get.
 I never go down an evaluation criteria list when I design a project before, during or
after. I say it’s intuitive and what’s nice is to be able to go back to a project and look
at a list and say, yes we have done that.
Other participants noted that environmental design research – not the translation of it –
can ‘lend weight’ to design decisions, as well as distinguish bids and entries for projects
and competitions. Sometimes participants use consultants who are experts in the field to
access environmental design research:
 There is power in being able to tie why you do certain things with a space back to a
very real, almost science-based rationale – it’s documented. It’s lent a lot of weight
to our design narrative. With certain project types it has been very helpful to have
underpinnings in behavioral science.
 In a competition you are always trying to distinguish yourself so you bring people in
that have other interests like sociologists or ecologists because it helps make for a
good mix. Not as many people are bringing in sociologists but we have recently.
 We’re actually doing a project with Gehl’s office and they’re sitting in the other room
right now. There’s an alignment between their thinking and our own.
60
William Whyte and Jan Gehl: observers
The two researchers most often cited by the participants were William Whyte and
Jan Gehl. The depth of their studies and their rigorous research methods are respected,
and their work has clearly influenced these designers. One participant noted critiques of
Whyte’s work relative to cultural and gender biases, but still stated that designers can
find value in understanding his findings “as knowledge, not rules.”
 I think Whyte’s a real touchstone, that was the first time someone really bore down in
that kind of granular level of detail.
 Holly White actually did real research. He was using research methods and looking
at the city and drawing conclusions that were sometimes unexpected because he was
following the research. That’s very pioneering research.
 Jan Gehl’s office has dedicated their professional existence to documenting the
nuances of viewing distances between people and the critical mass you need in public
spaces to make them viable…with imagery as well as diagrammatically. They have
managed to capture all of these wonderful metrics and anecdotes that you can then
apply to what you’re doing. They have literally dedicated an entire career to it.
 There’s a sort of sanctioning condition. If it seems useful to more than a few people,
it will become understood as being useful. If it really bears on the issue and it gets
read and it gets published and it gets reprinted…like Holly Whyte’s work…it gets
traction.
The study suggests a knowledge of and respect for the methods and findings of
these two researchers that places them outside the realm of uncertainty or negative
perceptions about other environmental design research. This is likely due to the manner
in which Whyte and Gehl chose to present their work; their findings are not translated,
but rather conveyed through photographs and video footage of people in public space.
As noted, Gehl also uses diagrams to simplify and categorize his findings. Other
environmental design research, including the design guidelines presented in People
Places (Marcus and Francis 1998) or the synopses of research found in the e-newsletter
61
of Research Design Connections, as two examples, has been often presented with a much
greater reliance on text.
Practical resources
Study participants were asked whether a resource on environmental design
research could be useful in current practice, and if so, in what format. They noted the
importance of sharing research with practitioners, while also pointing out the challenge of
the task:
 All the research in the world is not really that valuable unless you can figure out some
creative way to get it into the hands of the people who need it.
 I have to be honest, most of us would feel unhelpful if we were up in the library

reading.
 I’m not sure a little book on the shelf, even a remake of Whyte’s book, is necessarily
going to work its way into the mindset of people.
 It’s got to be a compelling document and for each person that’s a different thing.
Not surprisingly, none of the participants indicated that design guidelines would
be used in practice, even if they were reformatted, updated, or otherwise modified. The
solution most often suggested was a collection of case studies illustrating the application
of the principles for successful social space. Still, the participants almost always
qualified their response with a comment about its questionable use in practice.
 I think it would be a brief pamphlet-like summary of case studies, but like I say these
books are being published all over the place.
 To be able to look up certain spaces, say Bryant Park, and understand them and have
hard data: it’s this big, it offers these conditions, these level changes, loose furniture
here, steps…and an understanding of how it’s used, what those numbers are…I could
imagine it being used, but only if there was a way to navigate through it by spatial
typologies.
62
 I’m not sure what the best mechanism would be for making that stuff available. It’s
not like there’s a standard that captures all of this stuff. What about the outliers that
break all the rules and still succeed as great spaces?
Current interest in the social aspects of design
Participants assessed the level of interest regarding the social aspects of design
through two lenses: design education and professional practice. No general conclusions
can be drawn from these comments; they are presented as a window into the divergent
opinions about the emphasis, or lack thereof, on designing socially sustainable space.
Interestingly, the comments do not relate specifically to environmental design research,
again reinforcing the study finding that practitioners have incorporated the principles
generated by EDR in their thinking, but do not overtly acknowledge the role of the
resources as informing their understanding. The following comments indicate that the
topic is currently a priority:
 I see new candidates on the job market right now in urban design and landscape
architecture, and I’m thrilled at the level of exposure they are getting to some of that
thinking now while they’re in school.
 We’ve been fortunate that there’s been a kind of shift in planning consciousness in
San Francisco and New York that is really looking to revitalize the public realm,
streets specifically.
 In the last 10 or 12 years of design competitions, there has been a pretty big focus on
(the social issues). So if you look at an entry, there is an image of all the potential
visitors to the park in a day, where they might have come from, what they might have
been interested in doing…and so on…a kind of novel of characters through which
you could read the design proposal.
 I like to keep track of what all of our colleagues and other people in the profession are
doing. There are a lot of smart people out there, doing this kind of work and thinking
about this.
The following comments reflect the opposite perspective:
 Frankly I think there are a lot of designers designing spaces that have almost no
consideration for people.
63
 I just gave a lecture last night at a university and spent half the time talking about the
subject. The students are so hungry for this, and they’re not getting it. Hopefully my
talk brought it to the top of their attention, and they will revisit what they are doing in
their studio projects and incorporate some of those notions.
 In competitions, there’s a lot of pressure to have things look good, as opposed to

thinking through other things to a great degree. In other words, the thing has to be
clear.
 I’ve never seen the ‘cause du jour’ of our profession…be designing real public spaces
for social sustainability.
Post-occupancy evaluation
Finally, participants were asked if and how their firms engage in post-occupancy
evaluations of their designed spaces. One participant from a larger firm explained that
the firm was in the process of establishing standard evaluation procedures for the social
viability of their completed projects, as well as for other factors. The majority of the
participants expressed a belief in the importance of evaluation and described a routine,
but informal, evaluation process. They do not regularly use a formal methodology for
post-occupancy evaluation:
 You do the drawings, you build it, and then you walk away. And it’s only then that
the thing becomes relevant or takes on any life. And that’s when it becomes
interesting. So we’re always looking for opportunities to remain engaged.
 It’s not something you just stop. I do it all the time. I call it doing the
forensics…why isn’t this working and digging, digging, digging deep into it and
dissecting things to really understand it. It’s a constant recording and taking note of it
and then obviously it can be applied to the next project. I wish I were more scientific.
I’m not, it’s sort of a seat of the pants kind of thing, but I’m a very intuitive designer.
 Informally we definitely do it…for example, (a specific project) is working pretty

close to the way we thought it was going to work, and so that feels good. We’re going
to continue to watch it because its something we’re proud of, and we want to find out
if something does go a little bit south – why did it go wrong, and what can we learn
from it?
64
 I do know that there was a period…70’s into 80’s where the whole ‘post construction
evaluation’ was a big deal, because it was okay, did you design a great space? Are
people using that space? If they are not using that space, is it a great space? So a lot
of that went on and you couldn’t help but be aware that those were issues one had to
deal with as a designer.
The most often cited reason for not conducting formal POEs was cost:
 We would like to do it more formally, it just doesn’t happen…because it’s not part of
contracts and unfortunately so much of the profession is driven by contracts and what
a client allows you to do.
 We try to implement it in a formal way, but it’s not an easy thing to build into
contracts. It’s easy to see it as a line item cost and cut it from a contract from a
client’s point of view.
 For international work…the sad part is, once you finish, you take a few photographs
of the finished product, and you come home. No one’s going to pay you to go that
far, observe week to week, to see how people use it.
One participant also expressed a perceived difficulty of creating benchmarks for the
social success of a specific public space:
 As far as POEs for social behavior, how would you establish commonality or
baselines? The number of users per square foot? Or, a certain percentage of usable
park space has to be in sunlight? It’s very hard because conditions vary from city to
city. I think it would be a very interesting problem to attack – what are the indicators
of a successful space? Very interesting to ground it in a science.
Discussion of themes
Interconnections
The analysis of the interviews reveals a number of distinct, yet intricately
connected components regarding the ways in which and extent to which environmental
design research has impacted the design process of the study participants. These
components form a web (see figure 6) that informs how designers think about people and
the environment, and they include a designer’s intuition, interests, personal observations
of people in public space, the research methods of EDR, and the research findings of
65
EDR (also referred to in this paper as the principles of successful social space.) No one
component can be separated from another, as summarized by a participant:
 It is hard to untie influences from our own interests and agendas. They all become
mixed at a certain point.
Figure 6. Web of influences relative to the social aspects of design
As revealed in the previous section, translations of environmental design research,
including design guidelines, play a significantly less important role in professional
practice and cannot be considered a part of this web. This finding calls for a rethinking
of the relationship of EDR with professional practice and with design education.
If the primary goal of environmental design researchers is to impact practice,
resulting in the design of more spaces that are responsive to users’ needs, then
researchers must regularly evaluate how their findings are used by practitioners and
respond accordingly. For decades, researchers have focused on translating their findings
in an effort to communicate them with practitioners. Yet this study suggests that for
designers, the translations of research are not part of the complicated and interwoven
process of designing socially sustainable public open space. Many of the basic findings
of EDR, however, as well as the fundamental social science research method of direct
66
observation, have become deeply ingrained in practice. If translations are perceived as
unnecessary, rather than trying to create better ones to insert into the web, a more
productive focus for researchers would be to consider a holistic approach that could
enrich the entire web of influences.
Direct observation: a link between research and practice
William Whyte and Jan Gehl, like many environmental design researchers, used
studied observation as their primary research method. Other methods in EDR include
observing physical traces, conducting focused interviews, administering questionnaires
and surveys, and analyzing plans, archives, and other data regarding design intent and the
history of usage. Still, as John Zeisel notes in the revised version of his classic text,
Inquiry by Design (2006), “observing behavior is such a basic environment-behavior
research method” that researchers and designers are continually refining the method in an
attempt to improve the quality of the findings (Zeisel 2006, 214). The thrust of the
activity has not changed, however:
Observing behavior means systematically watching people use their

environments: individuals, pairs of people, small groups, and large groups. What
do they do? How do activities relate to one another spatially? And how do spatial
relations affect participants? At the same time, observers of environmental
behavior look at how a physical environment supports or interferes with behaviors
taking place within it, especially the side effects the setting has on relationships
between individuals or groups…You do not have to be an expert to observe
behavior.” (Zeisel 2006, 191)
Zeisel goes on to describe the methodology of observing behavior in detail; as noted
previously, his book is cited as a resource by Marcus and Francis (1998) in their chapter
on research methods for post-occupancy evaluation.
67
There are significant differences between these academic social science research
methods for observation and the informal process of direct observation that designers
regularly engage in. But there is also a clear relationship. Study participants commented
on the value of this research method and noted that their own observations of people in
space were not as ‘scientific’ as those of Whyte, Gehl, and other researchers. But they
recognized that by performing their own direct observations, they are engaging in the
same fundamental activity of social research, as illustrated in figures 7 and 8 below.
Figure 7: Direct observation as common research method
68
Figure 8: Direct observation as link between research and practice
Discovery and intuition
The process of observing behavior is one of discovery. Study participants
indicated that they value this process and engage in it regularly. In doing so, designers
use their own powers of observation to inform their intuition about what works for people
in public space. Laurie Olin, a respected landscape architect whose designs over the last
three decades have won numerous design awards, describes the role of this process in
design, “A large part of designing is becoming a student of people. To design well you
have to be interested in and learn about how people behave. Our designs are how we
show what we’ve learned” (Hoffman 2011).
69
While not articulated by the study participants, the link between observation and
intuition is critical. Intuition is the “immediate apprehension of an object by the mind
without the intervention of any reasoning process” (Oxford English Dictionary, s.v.
“intuition”). Yet intuition is informed and enhanced by accumulated experience, and by
the observer’s own interpretation, or translation, of what is observed. What study
participants refer to as intuition encompasses an understanding of people that has been
developed through years of carefully watching how they behave. The link between this
process of direct observation and intuition may or may not be consciously recognized, but
it was not explicitly acknowledged by the participants. Still, it is clear that the more a
designer observes people, the more his or her intuition will be honed, leading to design
decisions more likely to account for what has been learned. In this way, internalizing,
and later applying, what is observed could be considered a designer’s self-translation of
their own observation research.
For study participants, observations conducted by others, rather than the
translations of them, reinforce the designers’ own process of discovery. William Whyte’s
and Jan Gehl’s observations are valued and clearly have contributed to the designers’
intuitive sense about what makes a space responsive to the needs of those who use it. As
noted, Whyte’s and Gehl’s research is presented more visually than that of most
environmental design researchers, as shown again in figures 9 and 10. The photographs
and videos of people using public space are like windows through which the reader (or
viewer) can watch how people behave. More than any other resource, Gehl’s books and
Whyte’s film seem to mimic the process of observation for the reader and viewer.
70
Figure 9: Visual research: observing through Whyte’s eyes (Whyte 1980, 40-41)
Figure 10: Visual research: observing through Gehl's eyes (Gehl 2010, 86-87)
The work of these two researchers has not been translated; it is like a primary
source. Studying it, designers augment their own observations by seeing how thousands
of people behave in hundreds of public spaces around the world. Whyte and Gehl offer
suggestions, interpretations, diagrams, even some guidelines and directives, but the
71
emphasis on images of real people in real places, and the research methods behind those
images, is what makes their work convincing and weighty for study participants. In
many ways, readers and viewers are left to draw their own conclusions – their own
translations that can be applied to the design process – from what they see. For
participants in this study, this visual format for communicating environmental design
research, rather the translation of it by others into design guidelines, is the most
compelling, as noted by one participant:
 Books from Gehl are kind of the best things that we have available to us. They have
the benefit of having tested and tried and lived that stuff for a long time so it’s very
believable…it has weight to it. It seems to transcend culture and geography.
Empathy
Empathy is defined as “the power of projecting one’s personality into, and so
fully comprehending, the object of contemplation” (Oxford English Dictionary, s.v.
“empathy”). Without empathy, designers cannot fully comprehend what makes a
successful urban social space. As mentioned, Clare Cooper Marcus has noted that
research on seating, as one example of an issue that has been studied in the field of EDR,
isn’t complicated but is rather “empathy for the eventual user – and just plain common
sense” (Marcus 2001, 127). This sentiment was echoed by many participants, noting that
they do not consult specific research findings, but rather user their own common sense
and intuition when considering many of the social aspects of design.
But how does one acquire empathy? Like intuition, empathy is developed
through the accumulation of personal experiences with the world, and through
internalizing the meaning of those experiences. One’s direct experience with public
space, therefore, as a user and a careful observer, is the single most important activity that
72
will enhance one’s comprehension of it. This comprehension is what leads to the ability
to project oneself into a situation and understand what it is like for others – to have
empathy for other users of public space.
The ongoing process of developing empathy is directly related to the growth of a
student’s or young professional’s design process, as illustrated in figure 11.
Figure 11: Experience and growth in the design process
The diagram depicts a young designer or student who endeavors to design a
public space. As an inexperienced designer, she begins by making spaces that she loves
and that meet her needs. At the other end of the spectrum are spaces that others love and
that meet their needs. As the designer broadens her experience by consciously observing
73
how she and others behave in public space, she gains a greater understanding of how to
design successful social spaces, and she develops a greater empathy for the people who
will use them. In this potentially recursive process, her common sense and intuition
become more attuned, more informed, and more sensitive as her observations become
more astute. Through this evolution of her design process, she begins to create spaces
that are more likely to meet the needs of the people she is designing for.
Summary
The most significant findings suggested from the study are the foundation for the
recommendations and can be summarized as follows:
 Practitioners do not explicitly use environmental design research or translations of
EDR findings in their design process.
 They rely on intuition, informed by their observations of people in public space.
 The activity of direct observation links research findings and intuition, albeit
differences in the methods used by researchers and designers.
 Environmental design research findings have indirectly informed practitioners’
intuition and can be considered basic principles of good social design.
If translations of environmental design research on urban open space are not
widely used by designers, the questions become: how can the field as a whole make a
positive impact on design practice? In what ways can the field deepen a designer’s levels
of understanding and empathy? How can the research method of direct observation link
researchers and practitioners more closely, thus reinforcing the principles for socially
sustainable public space, as illustrated on the following page?
74
Figure 12: Collaborative model that supports the application of principles for successful
social space
75
CHAPTER 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
Design education
Reframe research: methods first, findings next
For environmental design research to have the greatest possible impact on the
design of future urban open space, future designers must internalize the methods and
findings of the field. For this reason, the recommendations of the study begin with those
related to proposed changes in design education. As discussed, the field of EDR is not
required in accredited landscape architecture curriculum. Yet even if the curriculum
were to be changed (as has been recommended in the past,) the study findings indicate
the need to rethink how this can be done to engender students with a knowledge of the
field that they will retain and apply once they become practicing designers.
A number of study participants were in school when significant research on
human behavior and the environment was first being conducted. They experienced the
early excitement around this new kind of research based on direct observation, and some
studied under professors who were conducting it. Yet even those participants stated that
their own intuition about the social aspects of design is more important than their
knowledge of specific research findings. As discussed in the previous chapter, the
participants consider the findings of EDR as a reinforcement of their intuition, rather than
a basis for it.
The study suggests, however, that the methods employed by pioneers of
environmental design research are widely respected by today’s practitioners. As
76
designers, they have adapted the research method of direct observation to meet their
needs under the multiple constraints they face in professional practice. The participants
recognize that their methods are not as rigorous as those used in academic research, yet
the goal of their pursuits is the same: to better understand how people behave in public
space in order to make design decisions that will support that behavior. When design
students enter the profession, they will be expected to engage in this process of direct
observation. How much more could be gained from the process if they had been taught
how to do it in school? How much more accurate, comprehensive, and sensitive could
their observations be if they knew how to perform the ‘informed journalistic critique’
described by Marcus and Francis (1998, 346-347) and summarized in table 1 of this
paper. As explained by Earl Babbie in The Practice of Social Research, the simple act of
being more aware that one is engaging in observation is a first step toward making those
observations more valid, “in contrast to casual human inquiry, scientific observation is a
conscious activity. Just making observation more deliberate reduces error” (Babbie
1995, 6). One study participant noted the same basic recommendation:
 I think probably the most powerful way to do this is to get students to actually start
looking at their world differently, not reaching up on a shelf and looking for an
answer from a book.
The question addressed in this recommendation is how these research methods should be
positioned for students within the field of EDR as a whole.
Based on conversations with leading designers, one conclusion is that a traditional
approach to teaching environmental design research, consisting of an exposure to the
literature and the subsequent application of the theory and findings to studio projects,
may not be the most effective method to encourage a long-term interest in, engagement
77
with, and inquiry of the complex relationship between human behavior and the
environment.
Rather, the study suggest that a framework that reflects what students will
encounter in professional practice could provide a better lens through which to teach the
methods and findings of environmental design research. A more practical approach is
proposed to introduce beginning students to the idea that our environment impacts our
behavior. Stated simply, students should first be taught – and inspired – to go out in the
world and carefully, critically, and systematically observe human behavior in public
space, the same activity they will be expected to do as professionals. With insight gained
from their own practice of this basic social research method, they will be better able to
learn from what others have discovered when they did the same thing.
As reported by participants, the fundamental method of environmental design
research – direct observation – is routinely performed in practice, albeit not in a scientific
or systematic manner. Design students must be taught to conduct direct observation, be
required to practice it, and be evaluated on how they incorporate their findings in studio
projects. In this framework, students become novice researchers first; they are active
participants in the field of environmental design research, rather than readers of theories
and findings compiled by others.
Whyte, Marcus, Alexander, Moore, and others relied on their students to gather
data through direct observation – students were an integral part of their research teams, as
described in the acknowledgements of numerous texts, for example:
The main work of the Street Life Project [the making of The Social Life of Small
Urban Spaces] was done by a small band of young observers, and I want to thank
them for their curiosity, their diligence, and their tendency to dispute my
hypotheses.” (Whyte 1981, 9)
78
These researchers taught research methods to the students and sent them to streets, parks,
and plazas to watch and record how people behaved. Students also contributed to the
analysis and interpretation of the data. They were directly engaged in the process at all
levels and at all stages.
The basic methods for observing behavior used by those students should be taught
to contemporary landscape architecture students. Some students may go on to pursue
more advanced behavioral research and become proficient in conducting interviews,
designing and administering surveys, and other social research methods. All students,
however, must be taught a basic methodology for making systematic and informed
observations and for analyzing their findings. They must learn and practice how to be
critical observers of how the design of public space influences the behavior of the people
who use it. In this way, the field of environmental design research becomes a framework
for inquiry, helping students (and professionals) to formulate important questions about
the social aspects of design, to understand what to look for when they are observing
behavior, and to apply their findings when making design decisions. Rather than offering
answers, EDR teaches students to ask the right questions. Richard Wener notes that
research does not generate design per se, but it does support and reinforce the
design process, and it assesses the success of design in meeting user needs and
goals. The world view and needs of design professionals [and students] become
integral to the design process. (Wener 2008, 284)
He goes on to summarize Zeisel’s (1975) perspective on the role of research, “a good
design process is itself a form of inquiry, made better by the use and rigorous application
of social science techniques” (Wener 2008, 284).
79
An exposure to the larger body of environmental design research findings,
including translations of it such as design guidelines, could then offer multiple benefits to
these student-observers. In this framework, environmental design research could:
 Deepen their understanding of the research methods they have practiced,
strengthening their ability to conduct thoughtful observation research;
 Deepen their analysis skills by learning about conclusions other researchers have
drawn from their observations;
 Broaden their exposure to research conducted in specialized environments and/or
with specific populations (how cultural, gender, and age differences impact behavior);
and
 Broaden their exposure to behavioral studies conducted around the country and the
world, introducing them to places they may never visit (as noted by one participant,
“we can’t all be everywhere”).
This is the power of the body of work compiled by environmental design
researchers, but it can be realized only after design students are equipped with the
experience and knowledge to absorb it. The results will be seen in studio projects created
by students as they design spaces that are even further along the spectrum toward meeting
the needs of others, as illustrated in the diagram on the next page. It is a process that
involves, but initially separates, environmental design research findings from its methods,
allowing students to become active participants in the process of discovery.
80
Figure 13: Environmental design research methods enhance the design process
In summary, this reframing of environmental design research for students means that:
 Students should understand that direct observation is the most basic method of
social research.
 They should be taught how to conduct a basic observation and evaluation of a
public space using the methodology for an informed journalistic critique, as
described by Marcus and Francis (1998).
 Findings from the field of EDR should be introduced as a supplemental
resource to broaden and deepen their observations.
81
LAAB accreditation standards
This framework for teaching environmental design research should be articulated
in landscape architecture accreditation standards. It differs from what has been suggested
by Kathryn Anthony in the previously referenced study on accreditation standards.
Anthony proposes the following language to amend the National Architectural
Accreditation Board requirements:
Understanding of the theories and methods of inquiry that seek to clarify the
relationship between human behavior and the physical environment and
demonstrated ability to apply the findings of environment-behavior research to
designed environments. (Anthony 2004, 85)
While she does include methods of inquiry in this proposed language, Anthony continues
with the following recommendation to implement the new requirement:
Ideally this criterion could be met by requiring at least one survey course in
environment and behavior in which students are introduced to the architectural
literature, theory, issues, research methods, and key research findings, followed
by an application of this knowledge in design studios. (Anthony 2004, 85)
Landscape architecture (and architecture) students manage demanding schedules
centered around a studio culture that can leave limited time for other coursework. Still,
additional courses are required to meet accreditation standards for landscape history and
theory, natural and cultural systems, plants and ecosystems, site engineering,
construction, digital representation, and other requirements. A survey course on
environmental design research consisting of significant reading, followed by the
application of the findings of EDR to studio projects does not address the
recommendation of this study that students should first have significant practical
experience with direct observation research methods before they are exposed to the
findings and translations of it. A survey course is not consistent with the findings of this
82
study that practitioners use EDR to back up intuitive design decisions. A more practical
and effective approach would be to provide experiences that will contribute to the early
development of a student’s intuition.
To reflect this alternate approach, or reframing of the topic, the language for
revised accreditation standards could read:
Students will learn accepted research methods for the observation, documentation,
and evaluation of designed landscapes, relative to human behavior. They will
demonstrate a proficiency in this process and be required to explain the
application of their research findings in design projects.
This proposed language focuses on a student’s ability to conduct and apply their
own valid social research as the first critical step toward integrating environmental design
research with design education. It is an experiential approach, one that was examined by
Margarita Hill, Professor and Head of the Landscape Architecture Department at
California Polytechnic State University, and others in a 2005 special issue of Landscape
Journal on cross-cultural learning in landscape architecture education. Hill notes that all
of the articles in the issue
heed the call for experiential learning….Students, themselves, often demand

educational experiences that allow them to understand how theories relate to the
real world by applying them in practice. This is the basis of the studio education
where students ‘learn by doing’ and where abstract concepts are applied in a
problem solving experience related to their professional training and
development. (Hill 2005, 121)
The specific subject matter explored by Hill (teaching cultural issues in design education)
is different, yet related to the subject of this study, but the suggested approach is the
same: students should be given the opportunity to examine theory through the lens of
personal experience, to “become directly involved in learning the complexities of their
society” (Hill 2005, 121).
83
New resource
To convey this new paradigm of research to students, a tool should be created for
use in undergraduate and graduate design education. As indicated by several study
participants, the influence of a faculty member or colleague who was enthusiastic about
the field of environmental design research can instill an interest and enthusiasm for the
study of human behavior. This should not be left to chance; all students should be
exposed to the field in a way that generates interest and excitement about the subject.
One study participant noted the importance of the presentation of information to
students:
 I’ve often said Whyte’s book should be redone or that film should be remade by a
young contemporary filmmaker to pass it on to students who…are used to getting a
certain kind of media messages delivered in a certain package. Our profession
refuses to recognize that we live in a world of 15-second sound bites and visual
flashes, and it’s okay to fight fire with fire sometimes. For important issues it’s okay
to ‘stoop to that level’ to get this message out.
The recommended format for the new resource is a 45-55 minute DVD to be used
in beginning design education. The overarching goal of the tool is to generate excitement
in students about designing great urban social spaces by showing contemporary examples
and giving them tools to think critically about how to do it. Objectives include:
 Teach basic direct observation research methods and techniques
 Introduce key principles of successful social design
 Show case studies of contemporary urban open space
 Illustrate connection between research and practice
 Present field of environmental design research as resource
84
Specific components of the DVD include:
 Instruction for direct observation, documentation, and evaluation
 Excerpts of William Whyte footage
 Footage of students conducting direct observation
 Footage of practitioners conducting direct observation
 Footage of people in contemporary urban open space
 Interviews with designers
 Plans/renderings of contemporary urban open space
 Exemplary student design work
 Overview of awards: ULI Amanda Burden Award, Great Places Award
 Introduction to the Sustainable Sites Initiative and the human health and well-being
credits
 Introduction to environmental design research as a resource (texts, organizations,
online resources, professional journals, etc.)
Design faculty could use this resource in early design studios and immediately
send students to the field to conduct observations of public spaces. Rather than an
additional course for students, this process could be incorporated throughout the student’s
design education. Students would learn basic direct observation methods and be required
to conduct research themselves, as they will be expected to do in professional practice.
At the appropriate time, additional EDR resources could be introduced to improve their
observation skills and broaden and deepen their understanding of the link between human
behavior and the environment. The emphasis, however, should be on equipping all
85
students with a proficiency in the basic research methods for direct observation used in
environmental design research.
Professional practice
ASLA awards criteria
Many have suggested that the criteria for ASLA’s design awards should include
post-occupancy evaluations that document the social aspects of submitted projects. The
study reaffirms this suggestion and recommends that ASLA require firms to use design
students to conduct and document the evaluations, thus providing students with valuable
experience and practice in this critical activity, an exposure to the awards process, and
opportunities to interact with practitioners and the professional organization.
Professional development
Professional designers, particularly those new to the field, should also be trained
to apply the same research methods to their standard practice of observing public space.
The resource created for students could serve as an introduction for young professionals,
and procedures for conducting an informed journalistic critique could be established by
individual firms. Marcus and Francis estimate a maximum of two half-days required to
complete the field work, a reasonable amount of time to allot to the activity, given the
study findings that practitioners already regularly engage in observing people in public
space. This training could also improve designers’ ability to understand and meet
benchmarks for human health and well-being in the Sustainable Sites Initiative™.
Landscape Architect Registration Examination
The mission of the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards
(CLARB) is to “support licensure boards in protecting the health, safety and welfare of
86
the public through the establishment of standards of competency and the preparation,
administration and scoring of the Landscape Architect Registration Examination”
(Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards 2012). As supported by the
large body of environmental design research on urban open space and acknowledged by
the Sustainable Sites Initiative™, the health and welfare of the public can be supported
by designers who understand and apply the principles for socially sustainable space.
CLARB should require state licensure boards to include a basic knowledge of direct
observation research methods in their licensure exams. The institutionalization of this
subject through the licensure process, as well as through accreditation standards, is
critical for the social aspects of design to become a long-term priority for the profession.
Promote new paradigm
Finally, to reinforce the connection between what students are learning about
direct observation and what designers routinely do in professional practice, a high-profile
spokesperson from the field could promote it through established channels: Landscape
Architecture Magazine, the ASLA conference, firm websites, and social media. Many
study participants made statements about the responsibility of designers to incorporate
the principles of good social design in their projects, as well their respect for the research
methods used by environmental design researchers. Some also described the role that
good social design can play in helping firms to win projects and design competitions.
Students should hear these messages directly from practitioners.
87
Further Research
Survey with larger sample size
The purpose of this study was to begin a dialogue with landscape architects about
how environmental design research is currently perceived and used in professional
practice, in order that practical recommendations might be made to enhance that
relationship. In-depth interviews were chosen as the most appropriate methodology, thus
limiting the sample size. The knowledge gained from this study should be considered a
starting point for further exploration.
Surveys could be developed and administered to a larger sample of practitioners
to test the findings, and to gain further insight. Additionally, more interviews could be
conducted with designers who have not been recognized by ASLA in Landscape
Architecture Magazine. Their assessment of the topic may or may not be different from
that of the study participants, as previously noted, and their input would add greatly to
what should be an ongoing inquiry.
Detailed curriculum review
The field of environmental design research is not a part of required landscape
architecture curriculum. In a 2003 study of a related topic, the ways and extent to which
ethics and social responsibility are addressed in landscape architecture curriculum, the
study authors note that “it should be recognized that accreditation standards do not
provide a complete picture of a professional curriculum, as they are intended to represent
minimal standards to be achieved” (Brown and Jennings 2003, 104). The study included
a comprehensive analysis using key word searches of course descriptions and course
titles in 73 accredited landscape architecture programs. Brown and Jennings concluded
88
that the omission of pro-social issues from accreditation standards “suggests that these
concerns are addressed in an episodic or piecemeal fashion, dependent on the interests of
individual faculty and students, as well as the nature of particular studio projects.” A
similar examination of how environmental design research may be offered in non-
required courses is recommended. Input should also be gathered from students who
enroll in these elective courses on human behavior, as well as from students who are
exposed to the field in programs that address human behavior and the environment in
more integrated ways throughout the curriculum.
Some university programs are known for their focus on environmental design
research. Marcus and Francis point out that social research methods are taught and
conducted in some university departments of landscape architecture, architecture, and
psychology, where “theoretical and pragmatic work on POEs has been carried out by
academics and their design students” (Marcus and Francis 1998, 345). They note the
following universities and departments that have published POEs on a variety of
environments (elderly housing, children’s museums, campus spaces, etc.):
 University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana (Landscape Architecture)

 University of California Berkeley (Landscape Architecture)
 University of California Davis (Landscape Architecture)
 University of Wisconsin Milwaukee (Architecture)
 University of Illinois Chicago (Architecture)
 University of New Mexico (Architecture)
 University of Maryland (Architecture)
 New Jersey Institute of Technology (Architecture)
 North Carolina State University (Architecture)
 University of Arizona (Psychology)
 University of Utah (Psychology)
 City University of New York (Psychology)
This list is likely out of date, however, and a comprehensive review is recommended.
One outcome of this review would be insight on specific practices (student assignments,
89
evaluation of proficiency, etc.) for teaching environmental design research methods,
which could be valuable in the development of the recommended new teaching tool.
Post-occupancy evaluations
Finally, the findings of this study indicate that contemporary practitioners have a
great deal of knowledge about the principles of good social spaces that environmental
design research has generated and that designers have internalized through personal
experience. In the interviews, participants mentioned many of the elements of successful
social design explored by Whyte, Gehl, Marcus, and many more researchers: sight lines,
surveillance, borrowed light, maintenance, adjacencies, seating, food, vegetation, access,
paving, focal points, sun and shade, water, circulation, edges, grade change and steps,
programming, and others.
It is more difficult to ascertain how these designers have applied this knowledge
in practice. Students (and the profession at large) could gain valuable experience and
knowledge by evaluating the highly-visible urban spaces designed by the study
participants, including those that have been recognized by ASLA in Landscape
Architecture Magazine. Ideally these evaluations would be published in the magazine.
This process would yield important insight regarding which principles for successful
social space appear to be more commonly adopted, and which may be more difficult to
apply in practice. Most importantly, it would continue the conversation.
90
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
The ultimate purpose of environmental design research is to enhance a designer’s
ability to create socially sustainable spaces that support the needs of those who use them.
Encouragingly, this study suggests that contemporary landscape architects are
knowledgeable about the findings of this research and have absorbed many of them into
what they call intuition, the tool relied on most to inform design decisions regarding the
social aspects of a space. Given this key finding, the recommendations of this study
address how the field of environmental design research might better inform and enhance
a designer’s sense of intuition.
Design education is central to this effort, but it is a difficult prospect. How can
design students be taught a more keen sense of intuition? And how can this instruction
be incorporated in an already dense, difficult curriculum? The challenge is analogous to
that of teaching good bedside manner to doctors. Can an intangible like bedside manner
be taught and learned, or does a doctor either ‘have it’ or not? In a recent study
conducted at several major academic medical centers, the objective was to test whether a
brief computerized intervention, as opposed to a longer course on the subject, would
improve doctors’ responses to patients who express negative emotions. All of the
participating doctors heard a lecture on the subject, and half of them were also given an
interactive CD-ROM that featured tailored feedback on their own pre-recorded
conversations with real patients. The study found that the brief intervention improved the
91
participants’ ability to respond more empathetically to their patients, when compared to
the control group of doctors who only heard the lecture (Tulsky et al. 2001).
The analogy speaks to the most significant conclusions and recommendations of
this study: i) it is possible to strengthen an intangible like intuition through instruction, ii)
the instruction must be interactive and experiential, and iii) it need not be taught as a
separate subject in an extended course. For design students, instruction should be
focused on teaching basic methods for direct observation used in environmental design
research. As close, critical, and sensitive observers, students will hone their intuition and
develop greater empathy for people who will use the spaces they design as professionals.
Ideally, this process should persist throughout their careers, as eloquently stated by a
study participant:
I think a designer’s primary responsibility is to observe and listen and understand

what’s needed and what’s of value and to effectively incorporate that into your
larger design vision for a place. It shouldn’t compromise it, it should actually
make it richer and deeper if you do it right. But therein is the challenge.
92
APPENDICES
93
APPENDIX A
THE SOCIAL LIFE OF SMALL URBAN SPACES (WHYTE 1980)
SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CHAPTERS
Introduction
“This book is about city spaces, why some work for people, and some do not, and what
the practical lessons may be. It is a by-product of first-hand observation.” (p. 10)
Whyte explains that since 1961, New York City has given incentive bonuses to
developers who provided plaza spaces at the base of new buildings: for each square foot
of plaza, builders could add 10 square feet of commercial floor space above the amount
normally permitted by zoning. By 1972, 20 acres of urban open space had been created
in New York City. In the following chapters, Whyte describes his findings and makes
specific recommendations to enhance the social success of future plazas.
Chapters
1. The Life of Plazas

“What attracts people most, it would appear, is other people.” (p. 19)
- Descriptions of busy plazas – who you see there (gender, age, etc.), what happens
over the course of a day, spatial patterns of use (circulation, gathering, standing,
sitting, etc.)
- He does not make specific recommendations. In this chapter, one must infer how
Whyte’s findings could translate to good design decisions. For example, Whyte
states that people like to sit in the mainstream, but others have found this not to be
true.
2. Sitting Space
“People tend to sit most where there are places to sit.” (p. 28)
- There are many photographs of people sitting on ledges. Whyte studied sun
patterns, shape of space, use of plaza relative to amount of “sittable” space. He
states that sitting should be comfortable (benches with backrests, well-contoured
chairs) but that it is more important that sitting be socially comfortable. By this
he means that the placement of seating should offer choice: sitting up front, in
back, to the side, in the sun, in the shade, in groups, off alone. He also advises to
maximize the “sittability of inherent features” like ledges, other flat surfaces and
stairs.
- Sitting heights: 17” is near optimum, but he concluded after observation that
“people will sit almost anywhere between a height of one foot and three.”
- Another dimension is more important: the “human backside.” People like enough
room – 36” deep is recommended; then two people can sit back to back.
94
- Benches: they should be “generously sized,” with backrests and armrests.
- Moveable chairs are best because they provide for the “possibility of choice,”
even if one does not exercise the option. Fixed individual seats are not good.
- Make the most of the opportunity to place seating on the edges of plazas.
- Whyte explains numerous methods for calculating the optimum amount of
seating, including his recommendation to provide as many linear feet of sitting
space for linear feet of plaza perimeter. He reached a compromise with the city
for zoning amendments: one linear foot of sitting space for every 30 sq. ft of plaza
space.
3. Sun, Wind, Trees, Water

- Sun: There is not a simple correlation. You can’t just conclude that people want
to sit in the sun – that alone doesn’t measure the “quality of the experience.” (p.
42)
- People want the choice to sit in the sun or not. Recommendation: protect access
to the sun. Make the most of southern exposure. Borrow sun if necessary –
“bounce the light” off buildings using glare (mirrored windows, travertine, etc.)
- “Warmth is just as important as sunlight.” (p. 44)
- Wind: “What people seek are suntraps” and the “absence of winds and drafts are
as critical for these as sun.” (p. 44) Recommendation: do wind-tunnel tests.
- Trees: “Trees ought to be related much more closely to sitting spaces than they
usually are…the best liked spaces afford a good look at the passing scene and the
pleasure of being comfortably under a tree while doing so. This provides a
satisfying enclosure; people feel cuddled, protected.” (p. 46) Recommendation:
developers should combine tree plantings and sitting spaces; plant trees in groves.
- Water: should be “accessible, touchable, splashable.” (p. 49)
4. Food
“If you want to seed a place with activity, put out food….Food attracts people who
attract more people.” (p. 50, 51)
5. The Street
“Now we come to the key space for a plaza. It is not on the plaza. It is the street.
The other amenities we have been discussing are indeed important: sitting space, sun,
trees, water, food. But they can be added. The relationship to the street is integral,
and it is far and away the critical design factor.” (p. 54)
- The transition between the street and the plaza should be “such that it’s hard to
tell where one ends and the other begins.” (p. 57) He describes Paley Park as an
example, including the sidewalk and steps, “the sidewalk in front is an integral
part of the park…the steps at Paley are so low and easy that one is almost pulled
to them. They add a nice ambiguity to your movement. You can stand and
watch, move up a foot, another, and, then, without having made a conscious
decision, find yourself in the park.” (p. 57)
- Regarding elevation change: “A slight elevation can be beckoning. Go a foot or
so higher, however, and usage will fall off sharply. There is no set cut-off level –
95
it is as much psychological as physical – but it does seem bound up with how
much of a choice the steps require….Sightlines are important. If people do not
see a space, they will not use it….Unless there is a compelling reason, an open
space shouldn’t be sunk.” (p. 58)
6. The “Undesirables”
- Whyte considers the issue of “undesirables” (homeless, “winos”) in public space,
and states, “The best way to handle the problem of undesirables is to make a place
attractive to everyone else. The record is overwhelmingly positive on this score.”
(p.63)
- He also discusses the issue of privatization of public space.
7. Effective Capacity
Whyte discusses whether a space can be overused. He notes that “when a space
begins to fill up, people don’t distribute themselves evenly over it; they go where the
people are.” (p. 68)
8. Indoor Spaces
(Not applicable to this study)
9. Concourses and Megastructures

(Not applicable to this study)
10. Smaller Cities and Places

- Whyte explains that smaller cities, which often have downtowns that are much
lower density, have a more difficult task in creating successful urban public
spaces.
11. Triangulation
“There is one more factor that ‘makes a place work.’ I call it triangulation. By this I
mean that process by which some external stimulus provides a linkage between people
and prompts strangers to talk to each other as though they were not….The stimulus can
be a physical object or a sight.” (p. 94)
- Examples include: street bands, mimes, sculpture, musicians, entertainers. “It is not
the excellence of the act that is important. It is the fact that it is there that bonds
people.” (p. 96)
Conclusion
“I end, then, in praise of small spaces. The multiplier effect is tremendous. It is not just
the number of people using them, but the larger number who pass by and enjoy them
vicariously, or the even larger number who feel better about the city center for knowledge
of them. For a city, such places are priceless, whatever the cost. They are built on a set
of basics and they are right in front of our noses. If we will look.” (p. 101)
96
APPENDIX B
PEOPLE PLACES: DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR URBAN OPEN SPACE
(MARCUS AND FRANCIS 1998)
SUMMARY OF DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR URBAN PLAZAS
Urban Plaza: “a mostly hard-surfaced, outdoor public space from which cars are
excluded. Its main function is as a place for strolling, sitting, eating, and watching the
world go by.” (p. 14)
Typology of Downtown Plazas (p. 20-23)

1. Street Plaza (widened sidewalk, seating edge, corner sun pocket, arcade, bus stop)
2. Corporate Foyer
3. Urban Oasis (more heavily planted, has garden/park image, partially secluded from
street)
4. Transit Foyer (subway, bus)
5. Street as Plaza (a street closed to traffic; pedestrian, mixed, or transit malls,
continuous blocks along a shopping street; usually modified paving, street furniture)
6. Grand Public Place (most like old world piazza – city plaza or city square (not
attached to bldg, bounded by streets))
Design Recommendations (Guidelines)
1. LOCATION (p. 23-24)

- General: Is it necessary? Does it serve an unserved population? Are there enough
potential users nearby? Does it tie into pedestrian system downtown?
- Specific: Corner locations with streets at same grade are best. Mid-block can be
good or problematic (depends on orientation, ratio, detailing of space). Widened
sidewalk can work, but not always, due to pedestrian/sitting conflict.
2. SIZE (p. 25)

- Difficult to make recommendations b/c every context is different.
- Some guidelines – Lynch says 40’ appears intimate; 80’ is still pleasant. Gehl
says 65-80’ is max distance to see facial expressions; 230 – 330’ is max to see
events
3. VISUAL COMPLEXITY (p. 25)

- People want variety in form, color, and texture: trees, shrubs, fountains and
sculptures, variously shaped artifacts, space articulations, nooks, corners, and
changes in level.
- A complex view is valued (mountains, for ex. or passersby)
97
4. USES AND ACTIVITIES (pp. 25-31)
- Users defined as people who pass through or linger in space – not those who
glance in.
- Functions of circulation and sitting should be relegated to distinct subareas with
transition space
- Plaza needs an “anchor” where people can attach themselves, not wide open space
- More male than female users in downtown plazas. Men want front yard, women
want back yard experience
- Most prominent use: walk through (52%), stand and watch (11%)
- People like entertainment, a fountain, watching people
- People watch, listen, eat, and sit
- People want more seats, more programs, and more greenery
- Most common purpose is to eat lunch. Others – sit/relax, meet friends
- Features most liked mirror Whyte’s prescriptions: water features, seating,
landscaping, and sunny environments
- Well-used plazas less troubled by crime; presence of homeless rarely assoc. with
crime
5. POTENTIAL SERVICE AREA (p. 32)

- Average length of travel to plaza – 900’ (two city blocks, four-minute walk)
- Main reason for choosing particular plaza – close to work
6. MICROCLIMATE (p. 32)

- Plaza should be located to get max sun in summer and winter. Consider borrowed
sunlight reflected off buildings (glass, steel, granite)
- When temp is above 55º, big increase in outdoor activity. Do sun/shade studies
during noon hour in months when temp is above 55º and put seating in sun
- Work with wind experts to mitigate negative effects of wind (most effective is
design/modification of buildings)
7. BOUNDARIES and TRANSITIONS (p. 34)

- Plaza must be perceived as distinct place, but be visible and functionally
accessible
- Should have two sides on public right of way if possible
- Transition from sidewalk to plaza is one of most important aspects of plaza
design.
- At least 50% of total frontage of urban open space should be retail or service
(Whyte)
- Edges/boundaries of a plaza should be for seating and viewing. A straight edge
accommodates fewer uses than an edge with many ins and outs.
8. SUBSPACES (p. 36)

- Large plazas should be divided into clear, but subtle subspaces with changes of
level, planting, construction, seating. Not too small – don’t want to feel like
you’re invading privacy if someone is in the subspace
- Help make plaza seem less empty when fewer people there
98
9. CIRCULATION (p. 37)
- People take shortest & straightest route between the sidewalk and building.
Shouldn’t impede that path of movement.
- Besides to/from building entrances, circulation must accommodate:
1. Passing through as short-cut
2. Access to a café, bank, or other retail use next to plaza
3. Access to seating or viewing areas
- Pedestrians disregard color patterns like different shades of brick/concrete,
painted lines
- They respect physical barriers and strong changes in texture
- They avoid cobblestones, gravel, and ventilation gratings
- Flow is through center of space or stairs, edges are for sitting, walking and
talking. (Whyte found opposite)
- Ramps shd be parallel with stairs
- ADA requirements for ramps and stairs: slope (no more than 1:12), minimum
width (4-5 feet), landings, handrails and direction changes, tread and riser,
drainage, and indicator stripping for stairs.
10. SEATING (p. 38)

- “We came to a spectacular conclusion: people sit most where there are places to
sit. Other things matter too – food, fountains, tables, sunlight, shade, trees – but
this most simplest of amenities, a place to sit, is far and away the most important
element in plaza use.” (Whyte, 1980, p. 30)
- They sit on anything – benches, steps, planting edges
- They like to sit near focal elements; along edges, and close to where others pass
by
- People seek a sunny spot. Locate seating in sun between 11:30am and 2:30pm
- Large areas of open space or multiple rows of benches be intimidating and
unwelcome when few people are there
- Secondary seating in addition to benches – mounds of grass, steps with a view,
seating walls, and retaining walls that allow seating – doesn’t look lonely with
few people
- Secondary seating should be 50% of total; 16-30” high (PPS), mostly 16-18”
- Variety is key: orientation, views, and style
- Best places to sit are simplest
- Benches: wood is best, 3’ x 6’ backless for multiple groups, or 3 x 3’; Whyte says
17” high
- For groups of more than two, linear steps and ledges are not comfortable
- Movable chairs are most popular – offer most options for location and orientation
- People in groups like sitting at table; umbrellas are good
- For singles: steps, ledges, straight benches permit natural spacing/no eye contact
- For groups: wide, backless benches, benches w right angles, and curved benches
- Materials: wood is best; concrete/metal/tile/stone okay for secondary seating.
Nothing that looks like it could damage clothes
- How much: 1’ linear per 30’2 plaza area (PPS); 1’ linear per 1’ plaza perimeter
(San Francisco zoning)
99
11. PLANTING (p. 44)
- People want variety and complexity: trees, uncommon shrubs, and colorful
annuals
- Must have seating or lawns for people to enjoy greenery
- Eventual height and mass should not cut off view of an activity or performance
area
- If plaza is sunken, trees should grow above sidewalk level
- Consider color and fragrance
- Protect plants; provide enough seating – people will trample
- Sloped lawn (needs edge, backing – not fully open) lining main circulation and
seating lets people sit more casually
12. LEVEL CHANGES (p. 46)

- Modest but observable changes in level are preferred over absolutely flat
- Also functional advantages – seating, circulation, upper level as stage, subareas
- People like to stand on vantage point with prop (wall, railing) to look at people
below
- Must use ramps to provide access to all levels
- Avoid dramatic changes of level between sidewalk and plaza
- Where there are subtle changes, maintain visual connection between levels
- If plaza is below grade, need eye-catching feature to draw people down
13. PUBLIC ART (p. 48)

- Livable Cities criteria for public art:
1. Create a sense of joy, delight, and wonder
2. Stimulate play, creativity and imagination – create a form that can be
manipulated, sat on, or walked under.
3. Promote contact and communication; encourage people to stop, talk
4. Provide comfort and amenity with steps, ledges, or railings near art
5. Encourage interaction and cast people as actors rather than audience
- Sitte: Only art in public places influences the masses daily and hourly; locate art
on periphery near main circulation; don’t block views
14. FOUNTAINS (p. 50)

- Visual and aural attraction of moving water is universal
- Noisy fountain close to seating can screen out surrounding traffic noise
- Sound of water also stress-reducing – locate max amount of seating within earshot
- A fountain must be in scale with its setting
- Be careful of downtown winds and blowing spray
- Costs for operation and maintenance should be considered
15. PAVING (p. 51)

- People move from A to B in a direct line; major circulation routes must
accommodate
- Can channel movement with surfaces people avoid: large-sized gravel and
cobbles
100
16. FOOD (p. 51)
- “Food attracts people, who attract more people.” (Whyte 1980, 51)
- Food increases liveliness and activity in a plaza
- Plazas where food can be bought should also have drinking fountains, restrooms,
and trash cans. See ADA requirements.
17. PROGRAMMING (p. 52)

- Designers can facilitate programming: persuade clients of importance of use;
provide temp/permanent stage for events that can be used for sitting/lunch when
no performance
- Examples: summer lunch/evening performances; seasonal festivals; licensed
street performers; farmer’s markets
18. VENDING (p. 53)

- Permit and encourage vending, esp in plazas with lunch crowds
- Design details for location: sidewalk width, pedestrian flows, building entrances,
visibility, accessibility, street furniture, bus stops, and nearby display windows
- Farmers markets are great. Fabric structure or roof can add color and vitality,
provide shade, contrast with scale, improve visibility of bldg entrances, help plaza
not look empty during off-peak hours
19. INFORMATION and SIGNS (p. 54)

- Names of buildings shd be visible and main entrances should be well lit
- Need signs for public transit stops, taxi stands, nearby streets
20. MAINTENANCE and AMENITIES (p. 54)

- People care for a public space if they see that management cares (plant
maintenance, not watering during peak hours, litter)
101
APPENDIX C
WHAT MAKES A SUCCESSFUL PLACE?
PROJECT FOR PUBLIC SPACES (http://www.pps.org/articles/grplacefeat/)
Great public spaces are where celebrations are held, social and economic exchanges take
place, friends run into each other, and cultures mix. They are the “front porches” of our
public institutions – libraries, field houses, neighborhood schools – where we interact
with each other and government. When the spaces work well, they serve as a stage for
our public lives. What makes some places succeed while others fail?
In evaluating thousands of public spaces around the world, PPS has found that successful
ones have four key qualities: they are accessible; people are engaged in activities there;
the space is comfortable and has a good image; and finally, it is a sociable place: one
where people meet each other and take people when they come to visit. PPS developed
The Place Diagram as a tool to help people in judging any place, good or bad:
102
Imagine that the center circle on the diagram is a specific place that you know: a street corner, a
playground, a plaza outside a building. You can evaluate that place according to four criteria in
the red ring. In the ring outside these main criteria are a number of intuitive or qualitative
aspects by which to judge a place; the next outer ring shows the quantitative aspects that can be
measured by statistics or research. .
Access & Linkages

You can judge the accessibility of a place by its connections to its surroundings, both visual and
physical. A successful public space is easy to get to and get through; it is visible both from a
distance and up close. The edges of a space are important as well: For instance, a row of shops
along a street is more interesting and generally safer to walk by than a blank wall or empty lot.
Accessible spaces have a high parking turnover and, ideally, are convenient to public transit.
Questions to consider on Access & Linkages:

• Can you see the space from a distance? Is its interior visible from the outside?
• Is there a good connection between the space and the adjacent buildings, or is it surrounded by
blank walls? Do occupants of adjacent buildings use the space?
• Can people easily walk to the place? For example, do they have to dart between moving cars to
get to the place?
• Do sidewalks lead to and from the adjacent areas?
• Does the space function for people with special needs?
• Do the roads and paths through the space take people where they actually want to go?
• Can people use a variety of transportation options – bus train, car, bicycle, etc. – to reach the
place?
• Are transit stops conveniently located next to destinations such as libraries, post offices, park
entrances, etc.? .
Comfort & Image

Whether a space is comfortable and presents itself well – has a good image – is key to its success.
Comfort includes perceptions about safety, cleanliness, and the availability of places to sit – the
importance of giving people the choice to sit where they want is generally underestimated.
Women in particular are good judges on comfort and image, because they tend to be more
discriminating about the public spaces they use.
Questions to consider on Comfort & Image:

• Does the place make a good first impression?
• Are there more women than men?
• Are there enough places to sit? Are seats conveniently located? Do people have is a choice of
places to sit, either in the sun or shade?
• Are spaces are clean and free of litter? Who is responsible for maintenance? What do they do?
When?
• Does the area feel safe? Is there a security presence? If so, what do these people do? When are
they on duty?
• Are people taking pictures? Are there many photo opportunities available?
• Do vehicles dominate pedestrian use of the space, or prevent them from easily getting to the
space? .
103
Uses & Activities
Activities are the basic building blocks of a place. Having something to do gives people a reason
to come to a place – and return. When there is nothing to do, a space will be empty and that
generally means that something is wrong.
Principles to keep in mind in evaluating the uses and activities of a place:

• The more activities that are going and that people have an opportunity to participate in, the
better.
• There is a good balance between men and women (women are more particular about the spaces
that they use).
• People of different ages are using the space (retired people and people with young children can
use a space during the day when others are working).
• The space is used throughout the day.
• A space that is used by both singles and people in groups is better than one that is just used by
people alone because it means that there are places for people to sit with friends, there is
more socializing, and it is more fun.
• The ultimate success of a space is how well it is managed.
Questions to consider on Uses & Activities:

• Are people using the space or is it empty?
• Is it used by people of different ages?
• Are people in groups?
• How many different types of activities are occurring – people walking, eating, playing
baseball, chess, relaxing, reading?
• Which parts of the space are used and which are not?
• Are there choices of things to do?
• Is there a management presence, or can you identify anyone is in charge of the space? .
Sociability
This is a difficult quality for a place to achieve, but once attained it becomes an unmistakable
feature. When people see friends, meet and greet their neighbors, and feel comfortable interacting
with strangers, they tend to feel a stronger sense of place or attachment to their community – and
to the place that fosters these types of social activities.
Questions to consider on Sociability:

• Is this a place where you would choose to meet your friends? Are others meeting friends here
or running into them?
• Are people in groups? Are they talking with one another?
• Do people seem to know each other by face or by name?
• Do people bring their friends and relatives to see the place or do they point to one of its
features with pride?
• Are people smiling? Do people make eye contact with each other?
• Do people use the place regularly and by choice?
• Does a mix of ages and ethnic groups that generally reflect the community at large?
• Do people tend to pick up litter when they see it?
104
APPENDIX D
12 CLASSIC AUTHORS AND TEXTS FOR ARCHITECTURE DESIGN
STUDENTS (ANTHONY 2004)
Bell, P., Greene, T., Fisher J. and Baum, A. Environmental Psychology, Fifth Edition.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group Thomson Learning, 2001
Carpman, J. R., M.A. Grant, and D.A. Simmons. Design that Cares: Planning Health Facilities
for Patients and Visitors. Chicago, IL: American Hospital Publishing Inc., 1986
Cooper-Marcus, C. and C. Francis (eds.) People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open
Space. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1990
Cooper-Marcus, C. and W. Sarkissian with S. Wilson and D. Perlgut. Housing as if People

Mattered: Site Design Guidelines for Medium-Density Family Housing. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1986
Hall, E.T. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, NY. Anchor/Doubleday, 1966;
Nasar, J. Design by Competition: Making Design Competitions Work. NY: Cambridge

University Press, 1999
Presier, W. F. E., J. C. Vischer, and E.T White (eds.) Design Intervention: Toward a More
Humane Architecture. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991
Sommer, R. Design Awareness. Corte Madera, CA: Rinehart Press, 1972
Sommer, R. Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, Inc. 1969
Sommer, R. Tight Spaces: Hard Architecture and How to Humanize It. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974
Whyte, W. H. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, DC: The Conservation
Foundation, 1980
Zeisel, J. Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-Behavior Research. NY: Oxford

University Press, 1981
105
APPENDIX E
COVER LETTER
March 6, 2012
Designer Name
Landscape Architecture Firm
Street Address
City, State, Zip
Dear Mr. or Ms. ________________:
I am writing to invite you to participate in a study I am conducting for my MLA

thesis. I was excited to learn recently that my application was accepted to
present the study at the Graduate Student Workshop of the Environmental
Design Research Association (EDRA) conference in May 2012.
The goal of the study is to make informed, timely and practical

recommendations that could enhance the application of environment-behavior
research in the design of urban open space. To do this, I hope to interview
leading landscape architects in order to paint a realistic and up-to-the-minute
picture of how this research is perceived and used in contemporary practice.
The study will only matter if the participants matter. To identify the pool of
designers to approach, I reviewed Landscape Architecture Magazine for urban
projects that were featured in the magazine in the last three years or that won
an ASLA award in that time period. These are the projects and designers who are
being talked about in the field and in the classroom. You are being asked
because your design for _______________ Park was featured in LAM in _____ 2010.
Your insight and opinions matter a great deal.
Enclosed is a Project Summary and Consent Form, as well as the proposed

interview questions. I am asking for slightly more than a half hour of your time,
which I sincerely respect.
Thank you, and I will be in touch next week.
Kind regards,
Jennifer Masters
MLA Candidate, 2012
106
APPENDIX F
PROJECT SUMMARY AND CONSENT FORM
Project Summary and Consent Form
Purpose
The purpose of the study is to understand how design guidelines based on
human behavior are used in contemporary urban open space design.
Information gained through interviews with leading landscape architects will
inform recommendations for how to enhance the application of environment-
behavior research in current practice.
Background
For decades, researchers and designers have wrestled with how best to share
and apply a body of research about the relationship between environment and
behavior to the design of the urban environment. Researches and designers
agree that to have a positive impact on our spaces, environment-behavior
research must be “translated” to be meaningful and compelling to designers.
One method of translation has been the development of design guidelines
based on human behavior. This study will explore the perception and use of
these guidelines, among other methods of translation, in contemporary
landscape architecture practice.
Participants
Designers of high-profile urban projects that have been featured in Landscape
Architecture Magazine within the last three years or won an ASLA design award
in the same timeframe have been invited to participate. These are the
landscape architects who, it could be argued, have the greatest influence on
the field, and therefore on the built environment. Participation is completely
voluntary.
Interviews
Short interviews (30-40 minutes) will take place in the designer’s office or by
video-conference. Proposed questions are attached; specific questions may be
ignored or new topics may be added by participating designers.
Publication
Preliminary results of the study will be presented at the Graduate Student
Workshop of the EDRA 43 Conference in Seattle, May 2012. Final analysis and
recommendations will be published as an MLA thesis on the University of
Massachusetts Scholarworks database.
107
Thank you
As the world becomes increasingly urbanized, an ongoing inquiry into the design
process will help to create places that not only improve the ecological health of
the site, but also improve the lives of those who visit it. This study is one such
inquiry.
Process and Confidentiality

Notes will be taken during the interview, and with your permission it will be audio-
recorded. All information gained in the interviews will be anonymous. There are
no known risks to participating. A possible inconvenience is the time spent on
the interview, but you will not be contacted after the interview.
Audiotapes and notes will be stored in a locked file cabinet and labeled with a
number assigned to each participant. They will be disposed of within three years
of completion of the study. All documents will be stored on my password-
protected personal computer.
Questions
You may contact me with any questions via email: jennifer.h.masters@gmail.com
or by phone: (413) 923-4343. You may also contact the UMass Human Research
Protection Office at (413) 545-3428 or humansubjects@ora.umass.edu. You may
take as long as you like before deciding if you wish to participate, and you may
withdraw at any time.
Signature
By signing this form, I am agreeing to voluntarily participate in this study. I have
had the opportunity to ask questions and have received satisfactory answers. I
understand that I can withdraw at any time. A copy of this signed Consent Form
has been given to me.
Please check “yes” or “no” for the following statement:

I give permission to audiotape the interview. _____ Yes _____ No
___________________________ ______________________ ___________

Participant Signature Print Name Date
By signing below I indicate that the participant has read and, to the best of my
knowledge, understands the details of this document and has been given a
copy.
___________________________ ______________________ ___________

Signature of Person Print Name Date
Obtaining Consent
108
APPENDIX G
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Interview Process and Questions
Process
The interview will last for 30-40 minutes and can take place in your office or by
videoconference. The goal is to explore how environment-behavior research
and design guidelines based on this research are used in landscape architecture
practice today. The discussion will be based on the following questions and can
be expanded to include additional topics that you consider important.
Questions
11. How familiar are you with the field of environment-behavior research and
with design guidelines for urban open space that are based on it?
12. In what ways does your understanding of this research and behavior-based
design guidelines influence you when you are designing urban open space?
Are there specific elements of design that are most impacted?
13. In what ways and at what point in the design process are behavior-based
design guidelines part of the discussion in your office?
14. Do you and other designers in your firm have access to these guidelines
and/or to other sources of environment-behavior research?
15. How and when were you introduced to environment-behavior research and
behavior-based design guidelines?
16. In what ways do you consider behavior-based guidelines relevant or not

relevant to the design of contemporary urban open space?
17. Do you have additional comments about behavior-based design guidelines

or other methods for sharing environment-behavior research with designers in
the field?
Thank you.
109
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, and Murray Silverstein. 1977. A Pattern

Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Andersson, Johan. 2011. New York Encounters: Religion, Sexuality, and the City.
Environment and Planning 43 (3) (Mar 2011): 618-33.
Anthony, Kathryn. 2004. The Role of Environment-Behavior Research in Architectural

Education. Scroope: Cambridge Architectural Journal (16): 84-7.
Augustin, Sally. Research Design Connections. 2012 [cited May/12 2012]. Available
from http://researchdesignconnections.com/content/about-us.
Babbie, Earl R. 1995. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
Bechtel, Robert B., Robert W. Marans, and William M. Michelson. 1987. Methods in
Environmental and Behavioral Research. New York: Van Nostrand.
Brown, Kyle D., and Todd Jennings. 2003. Social Consciousness in Landscape
Architecture Education: Toward a Conceptual Framework. Landscape Journal 22
(2-03): 99-112.
Carr, Stephen, Mark Francis, and Leanne G. Rivlin. 1992. Public Space. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Chapin, David, and Clare Cooper Marcus. 1993. Design Guidelines: Reflections of
Experiences Passed. Architecture & Comportement = Architecture & Behaviour 9
(1) (1993): 99-120.
Corbin, Juliet M., and Anselm L. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research:
Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Los Angeles,
California: Sage Publications.
Cranz, Galen, and Eleftherios Pavlides. 2011. Environmental Design Research: The
Body, the City, and the Buildings in Between. San Diego, California: Cognella.
Deasy, C. M. 1974. Design for Human Affairs. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman

Publishing Company; distributed by Halsted Press, New York.
Delafons, John. 2000. Review of Design Guidelines in American Cities, by John Punter,
1999, Liverpool University Press. Built Environment 26 (2) (2000): 164.
110
Demsky, Kathleen. 2008. Bibliography and Author Index for Environmental Design
Research. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 25 (4) (Jan 2008): 298-
357.
Demsky, Kathleen, and Linda Mack. 2008. Environmental Design Research (EDR): The
Field of Study and Guide to the Literature. Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research 25 (4) (Jan 2008): 271-5.
Environmental Design Research Association. About Us; Great Places Awards. 2012
[retrieved February 9, 2012]. Available from http://www.edra.org/content/about-
edra, http://www.edra.org/content/great-places-awards.
Francis, Mark,. 2003. Urban Open space : Designing for User Needs. Washington: Island
Press: Landscape Architecture Foundation.
Gaber, John, Sharon L. Gaber, and American Planning Association. 2007. Qualitative
Analysis for Planning and Policy: Beyond the Numbers. Chicago, Illinois.: Planners
Press, American Planning Association.
Gehl, Jan. 2010. Cities for People. Washington, DC: Island Press.
———. 2006. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Gehl, Jan, and Lars Gemzøe. 2001. New City Spaces. 6th ed. Copenhagen: Danish
Architectural Press.
Gosling, David. 1990. The downtown public realm: Lessons for the American Midwest.
Town Planning Review 61 (o.4) (Oct 1990): v-viii.
Gubrium, Jaber F., and James A. Holstein. 2002. Handbook of Interview Research:
Context & Method. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Habe, Reiko. 1989. Public Design Control in American Communities: Design

Guidelines/Design Review. Town Planning Review 60 (o.2) (Apr 1989): 195-219.
Hill, Margarita M. 2005. Teaching with Culture in Mind: Cross-Cultural Learning in

Landscape Architecture Education. Landscape Journal 24 (2): 117-24.
Hoffman, Johanna. 2011. Laurie Olin: A Student of People (interview with Laurie Olin).
Planetizen [retrieved March/26 2012]. Available from
http://www.planetizen.com/node/49639.
Holstein, James A., and Jaber F. Gubrium. 1995. The Active Interview. Thousand Oaks,
California: SAGE Publications.
111
Hopper, Leonard J., and Smith Maran Architects. 2007. Landscape Architectural
Graphic Standards. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
International Association for People-Environment Studies. 2012. What is IAPS.

[retrieved February/19 2012]. Available from http://www.iaps-association.org/about-
us/what-is-iaps/.
Jost, Daniel, Baldev S. Lamba, Thomas Woltz, Elizabeth K. Meyer, and Skip Graffam.
2009. Making Research Matter: How Can We Bridge the Gap Between Researchers
and Designers? Landscape Architecture 100 (1) (Dec 2009): 58,66,68-69.
Kantrowitz, Min. 1985. Has Environment and Behavior Research "Made a Difference"?
Environment and Behavior 17 (1) (January 1985): 25-46.
Kaplan, Rachel, Stephen Kaplan, and Robert L. Ryan. 1998. With People in Mind:
Design and Management of Everyday Nature. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board. Accreditation standards and procedures.

[retrieved February/16 2012]. Available from
http://www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Education/Accreditation/STANDARDS%2
0PROCEDURE.pdf.
Landscape Architecture Foundation. Landscape performance series. 2012 [cited June

2012]. Available from http://www.lafoundation.org/research/landscape-
performance-series/.
Lang, Jon T. 1974. Designing for Human Behavior: Architecture and the Behavioral
Sciences. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
Litton, R. Burton, Randolph T. Hester, Stephen Kaplan, Rachel Kaplan, James Corner,
Carl Steinitz, Bob Scarfo, et al. 1992. Most important Questions in Landscape
Architecture. Landscape Journal 11 (2) (Oct 1992): 160-81.
Low, Setha M., Dana Taplin, Suzanne Scheld, and Tracy Fisher. 2002. Recapturing
Erased Histories: Ethnicity, Design, and Cultural Representation - A Case Study of
Independence National Historical Park. Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research 19 (4) (Jan 2002): 282-99.
Low, Setha M., Dana Taplin, and Suzanne Scheld. 2005. Rethinking Urban Parks: Public
Space & Cultural Diversity. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Marcus, Clare Cooper. 2009. The Past, Present and Future of EDRA-Based Research.
Paper presented at EDRA 40, Kansas City, MO.
112
———. 2001. Just a Nice Place to Sit?: A plea for Designers to Consider Where People
Need Benches and Where They Don't. Landscape Architecture 91 (2) (Feb 2001):
127-8.
Marcus, Clare Cooper, Richard Drum, Sarah Artuso, and Ken Dockham. 2008. Why
Don't Landscape Architects Perform More POEs? [letters]. Landscape Architecture
98 (3) (Mar 2008): 16-21.
Marcus, Clare Cooper, and Carolyn Francis. 1998. People Places: Design Guidelines for
Urban Open Space. 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Moore, Robin C. 2007. Reasons to Smile at Teardrop. Landscape Architecture 97 (12)

(Dec 2007): 134-6.
National Architectural Accrediting Board, Inc. 2009. 2009 Conditions for Accreditation.
Washington DC: National Architectural Accrediting Board, Inc.
Population Reference Bureau. 2012. Human Population: Urbanization. [retrieved June

2012]. Available from
http://www.prb.org/educators/teachersguides/humanpopulation/urbanization.aspx.
Project for Public Spaces. 2012. About Us. Placemaking. [retrieved February/2 2012].
Available from http://www.pps.org/about/.
Proshansky, Harold M. 1974. Environmental Psychology and the Design Professionals.

In Designing for Human Behavior, eds. Jon Lang, Charles Burnette, Walter Moleski
and David Vachon. 1st ed., 72. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson &
Ross Inc.
Reizenstein, Janet E. 1975. Linking Social Research and Design. Journal of Architectural
Research 4 (3) (Dec 1975): 26-38.
Rofe, Matthew W. 2007. Urban Revitalisation and Masculine Memories: Toward a More
Critical Awareness of Gender in the Postindustrial Landscape. Australian Planner
44 (2) (Jun 2007): 26-33.
Scheer, Brenda Case, and Wolfgang F. E. Preiser. 1994. Design review: Challenging
Urban Aesthetic Control. New York: Chapman & Hall. Reviewed by Fahriye Hazer
Sancar. 2001. Journal of the American Planning Association. 61 (4): 354.
Schmidt, Frederick. 1985. The Preferences of Practicing Architects for the

Communication of Environment-Behavior Research in Design. Paper presented at
EDRA 16 conference.
Sitte, Camillo, and Charles T. Stewart. 1945. The Art of Building Cities: City Building
According to its Artistic Fundamentals. New York: Reinhold Publishing Co.
113
Sommer, Robert. 1969. Personal Space: the Behavioral Basis of Design. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Sustainable Sites Initiative. 2009. American Society of Landscape Architects, Lady Bird
Johnson Wildflower Center, and United States Botanic Garden. Guidelines and
Performance Benchmarks 2009. United States.
Tulsky, J. A., R. M. Arnold, S. C. Alexander, M. K. Olsen, A. S. Jeffreys, K. L.

Rodriguez, C. S. Skinner, D. Farrell, A. P. Abernethy, and K. I. Pollak. 2011.
Enhancing Communication Between Oncologists and Patients with a Computer-
Based Training Program: A Randomized Trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 155 (9)
(Nov 1): 593-601.
United Nations General Assembly. A/Resolution/60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome. 60

session. New York.
Urban Land Institute. 2012. ULI Amanda Burden Urban Open Space Award. 2012
[retrieved May/15 2012]. Available from
http://www.uli.org/AwardsAndCompetitions/AmandaBurdenOpenSpaceAward.aspx
Wener, Richard E. 2008. History and Trends in Environmental Design Research (EDR).
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 25 (4) (Jan 2008): 282-97.
Whyte, William Hollingsworth. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.
Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation.
Zeisel, John. 2006. Inquiry by Design: Environment/Behavior/Neuroscience in

Architecture, Interiors, Landscape, and Planning. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
114

Envt Design Research & The Design of Urban Spaces

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Envt Design Research & The Design of Urban Spaces

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Massachusetts Amherst

Environmental Design Research and the Design of

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses

Submitted to the Graduate School of the

MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning

All Rights Reserved

Approved as to style and content by:

response to the proposal strengthened this inquiry. Elisabeth Hamin’s expertise in

qualitative research methods was essential to conducting a sound analysis. Committee

Chair Patricia McGirr introduced the concept of post-occupancy evaluation in my first

People and the Environment, solidified my commitment to studying this phenomenon.

State University of New York at Buffalo provided encouragement and access to

Most importantly, a debt of gratitude is owed to the professional designers who

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RESEARCH

JENNIFER MASTERS, B.A., UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

M.S.ED., UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

M.L.A., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST

Chair: Professor Patricia McGirr

influence their behavior. Researchers in this field, known as “environmental design

Through interviews with practitioners, an understanding emerges of the impact of

environmental design research on contemporary practice, leading to recommendations

that could enhance it in the future.

observations of people in public space. The quality of their personal observations,

therefore, is critical to their depth of understanding of human behavior and the

research as a reinforcement of their intuition.

design research to inform and enrich this process.

Keywords: urban open space, environmental design research, environment-behavior

architecture practice, design education and pedagogy, research methods, direct

observation, post-occupancy evaluation

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi

Complexities in contemporary urban open space design.........................................1

2. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL

Environmental design research ....................................................................9

Brief history of environmental design research .....................................................12

Project for Public Spaces ...........................................................................25

3. STUDY METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................44

Shift in research question...........................................................................49

Expressions of uncertainty and value ........................................................51

Discussion of themes .............................................................................................65

Reframe research: methods first, findings next .........................................76

Professional practice ..............................................................................................86

ASLA awards criteria ................................................................................86

Further Research ....................................................................................................88

Survey with larger sample size ..................................................................88

A. THE SOCIAL LIFE OF SMALL URBAN SPACES (WHYTE 1980)

1. Informed journalistic critique, an exercise for students..................................... 34

5. Intuition and research findings in practice: two perspectives............................ 57

6. Web of influences relative to the social aspects of design.................................. 66

7. Direct observation as common research method ............................................... 68

8. Direct observation as link between research and practice ................................. 69

9. Visual research: observing through Whyte’s eyes............................................. 71

10. Visual research: observing through Gehl's eyes ................................................ 71

11. Experience and growth in the design process .................................................... 73

12. Collaboration supporting the application of principles for successful

Complexities in contemporary urban open space design

competing demands related to the three pillars of sustainability: environment, economy,

health and well-being of urban residents, an element of social equity, is a critical

component of sustainable urban design.

ecological, cultural, economic, aesthetic, and human behavioral considerations. The

variety of constraints inherent in each project demand flexibility, as well as in-depth

knowledge, on the part of designers, who increasingly collaborate with ecologists,

architects, urban planners, and sociologists to develop and implement sustainable